The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:01): I present report No. 5 of the Selection Committee relating to consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 21 November 2022. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 8 November 2022.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 8 November 2022, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 21 November 2022, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR WILKIE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) whistleblowers play an important role in exposing wrongdoing, as evidenced by the heroic efforts of David McBride, Richard Boyle, Witness K, Bernard Collaery and Troy Stolz;
(b) protections for whistleblowers in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and Corporations Act 2001 remain grossly inadequate; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) urgently reform the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and Corporations Act 2001 to ensure that protections for whistleblowers are strong, comprehensive and fit for purpose; and
(b) establish an empowered and well-resourced Whistleblower Protection Commissioner to facilitate the effective implementation and enforcement of whistleblower protections.
(Notice given 7 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 20 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Wilkie —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
2 MR JOYCE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the national importance of observing Remembrance Day this Friday, 11 November 2022;
(2) honours and remembers all those who have died and served for Australia as members of our defence force in all wars and armed conflicts;
(3) remembers that the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month marks the formal cessation of hostilities in World War I in 1918;
(4) recognises the importance of the Marking World War One Graves program as a part of our national commitment to 'Lest We Forget';
(5) further notes the Government cut funding for the program by more than half of the $3.7 million from the former Government's 2022-23 budget to $1.5 million in the October 2022-23 budget;
(6) calls on the Government to immediately reinstate full funding of $3.7 million.
(Notice given 8 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Joyce —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3 MS THWAITES: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the commitment of the Government to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full;
(2) recognises the progress made by the Government, particularly the Minister for Indigenous Australians, in preparing for a referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament in our Constitution;
(3) notes the important role local leaders, organisations and others will play in engaging with their communities on the referendum and how the Voice to Parliament is a nation-building project; and
(4) commends the interest and engagement of many Australians in progress on the Voice to Parliament, and truth-telling and treaty negotiations across various jurisdictions.
(Notice given 26 September 2022.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits —
Ms Thwaites —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MRS ANDREWS: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia's first responders to natural disasters perform a vital and valuable job in extreme circumstances for communities across our nation;
(b) ensuring the mental health and wellbeing of our first responders is not only the right thing to do but helps them continue their vital work saving lives and supporting communities;
(c) the former Government provided $10 million over two years in the March 2022 budget to Fortem Australia for the establishment of a national support program for first responders to maximise their capacity through stronger mental health, given the huge demands placed on them through the full suite of natural disasters;
(d) this funding was a scale up of the program that Fortem Australia delivered following a competitive tender process in the wake of the Black Summer bushfires; and
(e) in the October 2022 budget, the funding for Fortem Australia was removed, resulting in an $8 million budget cut that will mean on-the-ground support for first responders will not be available in the regional towns where it is needed;
(2) condemns the Government for the removal of vital support services when it is needed most, especially in the midst of serious and tragic flooding in multiple states; and
(3) calls on the Government to restore the full $10 million funding for Fortem Australia as announced and provided for in the March 2022 budget so that they can provide vital support for our emergency first responder heroes.
(Notice given 8 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mrs Andrews —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
2 DR ANANDA-RAJAH: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the social, economic and health disadvantages that women experience are the consequence of interacting and intersectional factors that entrench gender inequality;
(b) these factors result in less income over the course of a woman's life, fewer assets including superannuation, and greater vulnerability following trauma, such as relationship breakdown;
(c) the economic trade off associated with motherhood was overlooked by successive Coalition Governments who failed to introduce reforms that improved women's economic equality; and
(d) insecure work thrived during the former Government's era, disproportionately affecting women who fell further behind under the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic, contributing to their attrition from the care and knowledge economies; and
(2) acknowledges that the Government has a suite of measures crafted in consultation with stakeholders and informed by record representation of women in its ranks—these measures include but are not limited to:
(a) cheaper childcare;
(b) addressing gender pay equity;
(c) greater representation of women in key decision-making positions; and
(d) addressing sexual harassment in the workplace.
(Notice given 8 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 50 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Dr Ananda-Rajah —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3 MS SPENDER: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) household electrification policies can significantly reduce Australia's carbon emissions, its reliance on fossil fuels, and household energy bills by thousands of dollars each year;
(b) such policies are most effective when accompanied by support for household solar and battery systems and electric vehicles; and
(c) Australia is well-positioned to be a world leader in benefitting from decarbonisation, through the export of green energy as well as the technology and services to facilitate the clean energy transition; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) take the lead on driving household electrification by rolling out low interest loans and tailored support for low-income households that help to overcome the upfront capital costs of electrification;
(b) work with state and territory governments to urgently improve the regulatory infrastructure necessary for integrating greater electrification into our energy system; and
(c) provide additional support to community-led organisations which are facilitating electrification and other climate transition programs.
(Notice given 8 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 20 min utes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Spender —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4 MS TEMPLEMAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes with concern the findings of the Raising Their Voices report of the independent review into sexual harm, sexual harassment and systemic discrimination in the Australian contemporary music industry;
(2) commends the Music Industry Joint Statement of Acknowledgement recognising the harm documented by the review and their commitment to implement 'long-term, sustainable change';
(3) further notes that a pillar of the Government's national cultural policy under development is the centrality of the artist, which includes supporting the artist as a worker;
(4) welcomes the Government's position that artists have the right to work in an environment free from bullying, sexual harassment, sexual assault and discrimination; and
(5) supports the objective to prioritise a safe working environment for artists and everyone working in the industry.
(Notice given 6 September 2022.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Speech time limits —
Ms Templeman —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices — continued
5 MR WOLAHAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the previous Government's economic plan, implemented following the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, left Australia in a better economic position than almost any other advanced economy; and
(b) the 2022-23 budget was an opportunity for the current Government to build on this strong position and address the cost-of-living crisis; and
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) on every measure, this Government has failed in its task to deliver for everyday Australians, through their budget with:
(i) the cost-of-living continuing to rise;
(ii) electricity and gas bills predicted to soar by 56 per cent over the next two years;
(iii) wages for Australian workers forecast to go backwards;
(iv) unemployment projected to grow; and
(v) tax increases; and
(b) Australians are being hampered by a new Government with no economic plan for the future.
(Notice given 7 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Wolahan —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
6 MS STANLEY: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia's unemployment rate sits at the lowest level since 1974 at 3.4 per cent;
(b) large sectors of the economy are facing jobs and skills shortages due to the tight labour market;
(c) the record low unemployment rate is not translating to significant and strong wages growth in line with inflation and real wages have declined as a consequence; and
(d) the gender pay gap has remained high and has increased in the past 6 months to 14.1 per cent;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) the gender pay gap is a major concern socially and economically;
(b) the Government's Jobs and Skills Summit worked collaboratively with all stakeholders—unions, business, and advocacy groups to find solutions to skill shortages and close the gender pay gap;
(c) the Jobs and Skills Summit has identified 36 initiatives that can be taken immediately to alleviate skills shortages;
(d) areas of reform in the industrial relations system have been identified to spur wages growth for workers; and
(e) the sectors that will benefit the most from industrial relations reform are undervalued areas such as childcare, aged care and disability support which are female-dominated sectors and are less likely to collectively bargain;
(3) supports further consultation with all groups to solve Australia's economic issues and to set Australia up for further decades of economic and social growth; and
(4) expresses concern over the increase in the gender pay gap and the decline of real wages and supports any efforts to alleviate these issues.
(Notice given 26 S eptember 2022.)
Time allotted — 50 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Stanley —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
7 MR VIOLI: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) Government has not articulated a plan to improve the experience of citizens using digital channels to access government services and payments;
(b) 2022-23 budget did not contain a single new initiative designed to improve citizens' digital experience;
(c) 2022-23 budget will see more public servants employed by Services Australia, but without any new funding allocation to equip them with the latest digital tools; and
(d) development of the Digital Identity system has stalled significantly under the current Government to the extent that it is not even mentioned in the 2022-23 budget;
(2) further notes:
(a) most Australians are now transacting with the Government through digital channels with 1.2 billion online transactions taking place in the past financial year alone; and
(b) that the former Government initiated development on the Digital Identity system; and
(3) calls on the Government to continue the former Government's strong track record by prioritising service modernisation through digital transformation.
(Notice given 8 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Violi —5 minutes.
Ot her Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
8 MS THWAITES: To move:
That this House:
(1) welcomes the recent increase in pensions, following the largest indexation increase in 12 years;
(2) notes that in a time of cost of living pressures, this increase is a welcome support for pensioners across Australia;
(3) commends the commitment of the Government to support older Australians, who have worked hard all their lives and built this country; and
(4) acknowledges that it was the previous Labor Government that commissioned a review into pension payments, and ultimately adopted the recommendation to upgrade indexation requirements to support greater pension increases.
(Notice given 26 September 2022.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Thwaites —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
9 MR PASIN: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the critical importance of harmonised road safety data in formulating road safety policy;
(2) notes that:
(a) individual state and territory governments collect road safety data on a non-uniform basis; and
(b) the road safety data collected by state and territory governments is not made available to the Commonwealth Government notwithstanding the Commonwealth Government's significant financial contribution to state and territory governments to improve road safety outcomes;
(3) commends the leadership of the former Government in ensuring road safety was a consistent agenda item for the Infrastructure and Transport Ministers' Meetings (ITMM);
(4) further notes that at the ITMM that took place on 5 August 2022 road safety was not included on the agenda or indeed discussed; and
(5) calls for a nationally consistent approach to the collection and distribution of road safety data by establishing a national road safety data sharing agreement with the states and territories.
(Notice given 25 October 2022.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.
Speech time limits —
Mr Pa sin —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
THE HON D. M. DICK MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
9 November 2022
Public Works Joint Committee
Approval of Work
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (09:02): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Taxation Office—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at 6 Parramatta Square.
The Australian Taxation Office is proposing fit-out works for its new office at 6 Parramatta Square, Parramatta, Sydney. The proposed works will facilitate the Australian Taxation Office's relocation from its existing office at 2-12 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, Sydney, following lease expiry in June 2023. The fit-out will support a flexible working environment and reduce property operating costs while meeting occupational density targets. The estimated cost of the works is $64.4 million excluding GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works will commence shortly thereafter and are expected to be completed by April 2023.
The project was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works on 3 August 2022. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 that it is expedient to carry out the works. On behalf of the government, I'd like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (09:04): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Defence—AIR7000 Phase 1B Remotely Piloted Aircraft System Facilities Project.
The Department of Defence is proposing to deliver infrastructure and facilities under the AIR7000 Phase 1B Remotely Piloted Aircraft System Facilities Project for the introduction of the new Triton aircraft system at RAAF bases Edinburgh and Tindal. The proposed works will include a Triton control centre, training facilities, squadron headquarters, operating and maintenance facilities, aircraft hangars and wash point facilities, and airfield pavements. The estimated cost of the works is $427.1 million excluding GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early 2023, with works at Edinburgh completed in late 2024 and works at Tindal completed in late 2025.
The project was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works on 3 August 2022. Following its inquiry the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works.
On behalf of the government, once again, I'd like to thank the committee for undertaking another timely inquiry, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
TARIFF PROPOSALS
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 6) 2022
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security) (09:06): In the terms of the printed proposal which is now being circulated to honourable members, I move:
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 6) 2022.
The customs tariff proposal that I've just tabled extends the additional customs duty of 35 per cent applied to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia or Belarus imported from 25 October 2022 to 24 October 2023. This proposal, together with the amendments proposed by Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2022 mean that the additional duty rate of 35 per cent will be payable for goods that have left for shipment to Australia on or after 25 April 2022 and are imported between 25 April 2022 and 24 October 2023.
The proposal also re-enables access to certain tariff concessions provided by schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act for goods from Russia and Belarus. The concessions restored are those that give effect to certain international agreements and those that facilitate the importation of personal effects and duties exported and returned to Australia. These amendments commenced on 25 April 2022 at the same time as the additional duty was first applied.
Australia is joining like-minded countries in removing the 'most favoured nation' treatment previously accorded to goods imported from Russia. This increase in duty is in line with increases imposed by the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America. This temporary measure is a response to Russia's brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, supported by Belarus, and is necessary for the protection of Australia's essential security interests.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) 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) (09:09): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2022 will increase the value of the Commonwealth penalty unit from $222 to $275, with effect from 1 January 2023.
Penalty units determine the maximum fines which can be imposed for offences in Commonwealth legislation and territory ordinances.
This amendment will ensure courts can continue to punish breaches of Commonwealth law with financial penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offending or infringing conduct, and act as a meaningful deterrent to future offending.
The proposed increase is part of an ongoing process of reviewing the value of the Commonwealth penalty unit over time.
It will only apply to a person who has breached a relevant Commonwealth law or territory ordinance.
It does not alter the obligation on a sentencing judge to impose the most appropriate fine or financial penalty in an individual matter, having regard to all relevant circumstances.
This measure is estimated to result in increased revenue to the Commonwealth of $31.6 million over the next four years, which will support the government's budget repair efforts.
Debate adjourned.
Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2022
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that the bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (09:11): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Third Reading
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (09:12): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Third Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (09:13): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"The House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the Government to:
(1) give the Australian Parliament three months to review these significant changes rather than trying to force through the legislation this year;
(2) amend the legislation to exclude changes to multi-employer bargaining which will lead to more strikes and fewer jobs without increasing productivity or wages;
(3) admit to the Australian people that these extreme industrial relations changes will result in significant red tape and higher costs for small, family and medium businesses;
(4) work with the Opposition, crossbench and other stakeholders to make improvements to the Better Off Overall Test and changes to enterprise bargaining as outlined in the former Coalition Government's legislation introduced in 2020;
(5) abandon the move to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission;
(6) redraft this legislation to ensure matters are dealt with separately rather than as an "all or nothing" approach; and
(7) in the event the bill is passed, an independent review be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act as soon as practical 12 months after the bill receives Royal Assent and cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament".
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"until an inquiry into parts 11, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the bill is undertaken by a House or Senate committee, with the inquiry lasting not less than 90 days".
to which the following amendment was moved:
That the following words be added after the words 90 days:
"; and
(1) parts 1, 2 and 3 of the bill are added to the inquiry; and
(2) calls on the Government to change the definition of a small business from 15 to 100 employees".
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (09:15): The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill is an incredibly important bill and an urgent bill. It is about getting wages moving again and modernising Australia's workplace relation system. Australians have been waiting too long for a much deserved pay rise. They've been waiting 10 years, and they shouldn't wait any longer. That's why it's important that we get this bill through. What this bill does is improve job security and gender equity. It improves workplace conditions and protections, and it boosts bargaining and restores fairness and integrity to fair work institutions. It increases job security, which is so important.
This bill is for workers who have been the heroes of the pandemic, the people who are underpaid, who fronted up day after day to keep people safe—the cleaners; the people in retail who fronted up day after day in that really stressful time of uncertainty; the people who are working multiple jobs just to feed their families, as we see increasingly insecure work and low-paid work in this country. It's for the people who fronted up day after day to care for the oldest Australians, aged-care workers. I'm really pleased to see that the Fair Work Commission has granted them the interim pay rise that they so much deserve after the advocacy of those workers, of unions and of the now Labor government. What our system needs is more than these case-by-case improvements. It need across-the-board reform to restore the balance and protect people who don't have the bargaining power in the workplace that they should have. This the for the people who fronted up in the pandemic to care for and educate the youngest Australians, our early childhood education and care workers. This is for people who are struggling at the moment with cost-of-living pressures, in my electorate and in every electorate that is represented in this place. It is important that we get this done to get the balance right in our workplaces and move into the future with a system that helps workers.
When an economy is managed properly, wages grow. That is not what we saw under the former government. We saw a decade of stagnant wages, and it is time that it ends. Working Australians have waited long enough. It's no surprise that those in the opposition don't support this. We've been listening to their speeches, and it's the same old stuff about unions—scaremongering about unions, about the impact this will have—and it's really the greatest hits from those opposite. It really is not surprising because the coalition in government had low wages openly and proudly as part of their economic strategy. You will never hear that from people on our side because we want an economy that works for Australians. When an economy is working well, people have wages that are growing, people have stability in their jobs, and that is what we need.
This is a bill that will improve gender equity in our economy. We in Australia are shamefully ranked 43rd for gender equity, and that has fallen in recent years. This is not good enough. We are well behind many similar countries. We have a gender pay gap of 14.1 per cent that persists. A huge part of this is the highly feminised industries, the female dominated industries, that are not given the respect they deserve, because value is not placed on the work that they are doing—caring work, which is skilled work, which is emotionally and physically draining work and which is incredibly dedicated work. It is work about which there should be no doubt as to its value because it is caring for our loved ones and educating our loved ones. It is incredibly important. These are the very people—and the cleaners, the retail workers and the others I've mentioned—whose wages have been stagnant for too long and who are being abused by the system, essentially, because they do not have a system that works for them that gives them any kind of fair standing in the workplace. This is about restoring that balance.
The gender pay gap persists in all industries but especially in these highly feminised industries, as I've mentioned. To reduce gender pay inequity, this bill will introduce a number of measures. A key one is banning pay-secrecy clauses so that companies can't prohibit staff talking about pay if they want to. It sounds ridiculous that that exists in 2022, but it does. It means that it can keep women in particular in the dark about the disparity between their pay and that of colleagues. This bill will address that, and it's very important. This will improve transparency and reduce the risk of gender pay discrimination, and it will empower women to ask their employers for pay rises. It will make gender equity a central objective of the Fair Work Act, including the modern award system, putting the issue at the heart of pay decisions made by the Fair Work Commission.
The government is also committed to enshrining job security as an object of the Fair Work Act to make clear the importance of job security in the workplace relations system. As I've said, at the moment in our economy, we see people increasingly having to work multiple jobs just to feed their families, to pay their rent and to fill their car with petrol. It is really difficult. This is not the Australia we want. We want an Australia where people have well-paid, secure, stable jobs. We saw just what no job security was like in the pandemic. When that pandemic hit, people didn't know if they were going to keep their jobs, and many people did lose their jobs. We did see some good things put in place by the former government to help people through that, but the people that they left out were casuals, and that was disgraceful. These were the people who had no job security.
We saw the impact of no job security when that pandemic hit and we see it in changing economic times, with the economic uncertainty that we're facing at the moment with the global situation. Job security is what people need to get on with their lives and support their families, and this bill will help to deliver that.
The bill will also implement one of the outcomes from the Jobs and Skills Summit: to provide stronger access to flexible working arrangements.
In line with recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, the bill will also introduce into the Fair Work Act a new prohibition on sexual harassment, including a new dispute resolution mechanism at the Fair Work Commission. This will provide all Australian workers with access to quick, informal dispute resolution before the specialist workplace relations tribunal.
As an outcome of the Jobs and Skills Summit earlier this year, the government agreed to strengthen protections against discrimination in the workplace. The bill does it by adding breastfeeding, gender identity and intersex status to the list of prohibited characteristics in the Fair Work Act, and this will align the Fair Work Act with other Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws—another really important part of this bill.
This bill contains measures to enhance the compliance and enforcement framework of the Fair Work Act. To deter underpayment and ensure that workers are paid correctly, the bill implements a recommendation of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce by prohibiting employers from advertising jobs with rates of pay which breach the Fair Work Act and relevant instruments.
The bill will also make amendments to the small claims process in the Fair Work Act to better support the recovery of unpaid entitlements.
Australia's enterprise bargaining system has been in decline for the last 10 years. Around half as many new agreements were made in 2020-21 as were made in 2013-14.
This bill is overdue, and I am so proud that on forming government we are making one of our first priorities putting in place a system, modernising a system, that will get wages moving again for Australians—Australians who are hurting at the moment. Every member of this place knows, if they are listening to their electorate, that people need a wage rise. They have waited too long.
Another really important part of this bill is abolishing the ABCC, because we believe that people in the construction industry should be subject to the same rules as everyone else and not be persecuted for being part of their unions. This is something I talked about in in my first speech, and I'm really pleased that this bill will deliver that. (Time expired)
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (09:25): I rise to make some observations on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This has been very rushed. We have had 10 days to consider very important legislation that will have significant consequences. As I said yesterday, objecting to the motion to curtail debate by the government, I have grave concerns about the process the government has undergone in relation to this legislation. What's disappointing is that this aspect overshadows what is good about this bill, and there is much good work in the bill—for example, the provisions dealing with setting the objects in the bill and awards for gender-equal remuneration, which I strongly support, as well as increasing pay transparency to allow for greater visibility of pay scales across business operations, preventing sexual harassment in the workplace and reforming the better off overall test.
These provisions reflect many of the concerns raised at the Jobs and Skills Summit. They make good progress in correcting inequities in the system which I believe are currently holding back the country's overall wellbeing and prosperity. And I fully support the commitment to get real wages moving. There is no denying that we have seen a rapid increase in the cost of living, and wages need to respond so that Australians aren't left behind. I absolutely welcome the recent 15 per cent award pay rise for aged-care workers and welcome efforts to get bargaining between employers and employees moving again. However, perhaps flushed with enthusiasm and eager to keep up the momentum, the government has gone on to propose some less-well-considered changes—in particular, in the area of multi-employer enterprise agreements, which I consider will have consequences that, although perhaps unintended, will nonetheless be negative.
I'm concerned that the speed with which these further amendments have been drafted will lead to unintended consequences, and I would ask the government to consider splitting this bill in two, in line with the second reading amendment moved by the member. Splitting the bill would allow for substantive progress to be made on the areas where we know there is solid agreement and would allow for greater thought and consultation to be given to the more contentious and less-well-formed sections of the bill. The better off overall test changes are good. Multiple examples throughout the history of industrial relations law in this country show that where the settings posed have unintended consequences it does cause damage. Indeed, this bill and the amendments to the better off overall test are an example of the well-intended provision that has had a negative impact on the uptake of enterprise bargaining agreements. The interpretation of the BOOT as better off in every respect has led to the trashing of many good and productive enterprise agreements. I commend the work in this bill to reform that provision and reset the test to its the original intention. This is good work, and there's agreement between both employer groups and the unions that this change needs to happen.
However, it absolutely illustrates the perils of rushing through legislative change. The fact that the government is already flagging its own multiple amendments to its own legislation simply shows to me that there hasn't been a proper consultation and due consideration of such important legislation. There hasn't been the rigour that needs to go into developing this type of legislation. Saying 'that's not our intention' is not a protection, and we will see so many of those unintended consequences, and then all the good work that is hoped to be achieved by this legislation will be undone.
On the information currently available, I don't believe that the amendments the government is proposing go far enough, and I will address these. We've had the bill for 10 days. It's complex legislation and it's taken a great deal of time for me and my team to get various representative groups to get their heads around the issues contained within it. There has not been sufficient time for consultation with our communities, to reach out to business groups, to understand and to make sure they are aware of the implications for them in this legislation—even from the employee's or employer's point of view. There has not been that opportunity.
The arguments by the government and the minister are, with respect, entirely disingenuous. This argument that this is how we're going to get wages moving—like somehow in the immediate next few weeks the Australian public in these sectors are going to have the benefit of wage rises—is so disingenuous. The reality of multi-employer bargaining is that this is going to take years. If these disputes were intractable before with single employers—throw in multiple employers and different-sized businesses and you are going to have intractable disputes for years. Rather than an opportunity to genuinely get wages going in these sectors, you are going to see a stalemate. You are going to see everything grind to a halt. I think that is incredibly poor planning and vision from the government.
My primary concern is for the impact this legislation will have on small business, and this will impact many women. As much as it is always claimed, in many speeches by the government, to be about raising wages in feminised professions, many women have small businesses. Under this bill, small business is defined as having fewer than 15 employees. This threshold is much too low, in my opinion. In Warringah there are at least 370 businesses who would be able to engage in, or be compelled to engage in, multi-employer bargaining under the current definition of a small business as having fewer than 15 employees. The added complexity of being compelled to engage in the multi-employer bargaining process will drive fear into many business owners who are struggling to keep their heads above water and still reeling from the impact of COVID-19. The impact on the mental health of these people is a serious concern.
There are 18 residential aged-care homes and 73 childcare providers across my electorate of Warringah which this legislation could affect, and they're a mixture of large conglomerates, small private and not-for-profit providers. I absolutely support the need for wage rises across these sectors, but I fear that the unintended consequences of this bill could lead to a very anticompetitive environment where bigger players in the sector engaging in multi-employer bargaining with small providers will make it absolutely impossible for small providers to continue. And what will that be as an outcome? The government is saying they are here to try to get wages moving for women, but if we end up with the result of small childcare centres closing down because they cannot compete, and then we have a loss of childcare places, the first people impacted by that are working women.
Small businesses do not have the resources to deal with this complex legislation, and while the government and the unions are consistently activating the line that this won't impact small business and union penetration is too low and therefore there's no incentive to start a multi-employer bargaining process, the very fact that the government is not willing move on the definition of small business being 15 employees means I don't believe that rhetoric. There are not sufficient protections in place for small businesses, and they should be carved out to provide the legislative assurance that their current structures will be protected. It's particularly concerning when it comes to multi-employer bargaining provisions and the ability for employee representatives to join businesses who weren't even involved at the negotiating table of the initial enterprise agreement but who will then be dragged into that at the conclusion of the agreement. That absolutely should be amended.
Common interest should be more clearly defined. At present, it's defined loosely as sharing a geographical location or being regulated by a common regulatory regime. The test should retain the need to consider the extent to which the relevant employers operate collaboratively rather than competitively. I also propose that the Fair Work Commission should be obliged to consider the economic circumstances and relative size and scope of the employer's enterprises in determining whether there is a common interest. The common-interest test should also avoid lumping large enterprises together with small businesses. They will be unable to absorb the cost of enterprise agreements with larger corporations—small enterprises simply won't be able to agree and will be forced out of the market. The public interest test should be supported. So I urge the minister to reflect and to consider the very good amendments that have been put to him. They have been proposed to address some of these concerns. Ultimately, it must be a shorter review period to at least be able to assess the unintended consequences that will result from this legislation.
The approach the government has chosen to take on this is really concerning, because all the good work of some parts of this legislation are so undermined by these really concerning aspects. My biggest fear is that we're going to have this grinding to a halt, where in any kind of single-enterprise agreements the bargaining will actually grind to a halt as businesses, small, medium and large, come to terms with the complexity of this legislation which is being rushed through. I believe that it's such poor judgement by the government.
(Quorum formed)
Mr REPACHOLI (Hunter) (09:38): I rise today to contribute to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This is an area that I'm extremely passionate about, and the types of issues that are being addressed in this bill are what led me to put my hand up to be elected to this parliament.
The Labor Party is a party for the workers, the everyday Australians; we care about workers because workers make this country what it is. The people of Hunter are hard working; they deserve a government that delivers for them and looks after their rights at work. They deserve a government that will fight to increase their wages so they can afford the simple things in life. That's what our government is doing, and that's what this bill is introducing.
In September the Prime Minister and Treasurer got everyone in a room—employers, employees, business groups and unions—and had a discussion at the Jobs and Skills Summit. The summit was a success and established a sensible solution to issues that workers and businesses are facing and offered us a way forward. Today, we want to implement these changes. In my electorate of Hunter, I held my own round tables with local businesses and community representatives and I heard from many workers throughout the Hunter. I heard the same stories: wages aren't moving and it's hard to get workers in the jobs that need them; the rapid casualisation of our workforce and the issues associated with the quality of care in the service provision sectors.
This bill will do exactly as it says in the title: make jobs more secure and better paid. And it will make the system fairer. By introducing these changes, what our government is doing is promoting job security, helping to close the gender pay gap, modernising the workplace bargaining system and, importantly, getting wages moving again.
Can you hear that, Mr Speaker? I can hear those opposite getting out their dictionaries and flicking through the pages, trying figuring out what a wage rise actually means. A proper wage rise under the former government in the last decade has been rarer than a Tasmanian tiger. Or maybe I'm mistake; maybe those opposite do know what a wage rise is, because they've worked hard to prevent one from occurring. They deliberately kept wages low and they encouraged insecure work. They held workers back and made our country fall behind. Australia's workplace relations system is not working for employees and it's certainly not working for employers. Our country is build on the idea of a fair go, and, currently, workers aren't getting a fair go at all.
Our country is renowned for its productivity. We've always been punching above our weight, as some say. But, at the moment, employers aren't seeing a rise in productivity at all. We want to fix this. In Australia, unfortunately, your experience in the workplace seems to have a lot to do with what gender you are. It's the hardworking women of this country who are often most disadvantaged, and this is not acceptable at all. I want my two girls to walk into any future workplace and know that they are receiving the same pay and the same rights as any man working in that same industry. But right now this is simply not the reality. The gender pay gap is at 14.1 per cent, sexual harassment in the workplace is rampant, and work just isn't flexible enough. The bill will change this by putting gender equity at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making, boosting the commission's gender pay gap expertise, banning pay secrecy clauses, expanding access to flexible working arrangements and prohibiting sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act.
Job security in this country has been an issue plaguing the Australian workforce for far too long. Australian workers trying to provide for their families have been going to work day in, day out, not knowing how much longer they will hold their jobs, knowing that, if they wake up the next day feeling unwell, they won't have the sick leave to cover them, and knowing that there is not much they can do about it. Australians deserve better, and we're delivering better. We are placing new limits on rolling fixed-term contracts so workers can't effectively be put on an endless probation period. This gives certainty to Australian workers, and it's just common sense that, when a worker is certain about the future, they're more likely to be able to give their all in the workplace, which is great for the employers.
We're also protecting workers. We're increasing workers' ability to recover unpaid entitlements under the Fair Work small claims systems, because workers should be paid properly and, when they're not, they deserve to receive all the money that they are owed, no matter what the amount is. Bargaining is a powerful tool for employees, and it is also important that they are able to use this tool to fight for better wages and conditions in the workplace. It's important for business too, as it helps increase productivity in the workplace. I previously managed a workplace with over 70 employees and I know the importance of good wages and good conditions. I saw firsthand how it helps business and productivity when employees are happy and comfortable in their work environment. But at the moment having the right to bargain for your pay and conditions seems to be rare, with only 14.7 per cent of Australians covered by an in term agreement. The bargaining system is outdated. After a decade of mismanagement by the previous government, who did not care and will never care about real workers, it needs to be modernised, and that is exactly what we're doing.
With this bill, we're expanding access to enterprise bargaining and multi-employer bargaining. We aren't creating new systems of bargaining. We're varying the existing systems to make them more workable and to get wages moving again. We're also making changes to the better off overall test, or as I like to call it 'the BOOT'. We're making sure that it's simple, flexible and fair. Bargaining is a positive thing for employees and employers, so it makes sense to make it a lot easier to start the bargaining process. This will lead to better outcomes for all involved and it will be another factor which helps in getting wages moving for those who are low paid.
Labor established the Fair Work Commission in 2009 and it has been an important part for workers, helping to give them a voice in standing up for their rights. But we know that sometimes disputes can be complex and run over a long period of time. To help in resolving these difficult, long-running disputes this bill will give the Fair Work Commissioner new powers. Our aim is simple: we want a strong economy that delivers for Australia and leaves nobody behind, we want more secure jobs with fair pay and better conditions and we want more workers to be in these jobs. At the very core of our motivations, we want to see more Australians living a better life and more businesses thriving into the future. Business groups and unions agree that these changes are important. I hope those opposite will be sensible and cooperative and support this bill.
Australians know that our industrial relations system is broken and Australians know that it was those opposite who broke it. That's why we were elected in May and that's why we're getting on with the job of making life better for all Australians. We're fighting to increase wages and conditions and we're not leaving anyone behind. For those opposite, for those who oppose changes that benefit workers and employees alike, I have news for you: there's more to come. We won't stop until we've delivered on all of our commitments to fix the mess that we were left with. We won't stop until every worker in this country has the wages and conditions that they deserve.
Ms LE (Fowler) (09:48): I rise to speak on the proposed industrial relations reform, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, which will see sweeping workforce reforms. Right now the government would have us believe that this bill is supposed to open up discussions between employers and employees to achieve wage increases, as well as improve working conditions and improve our competitiveness in this global and technology driven world. The truth is this bill is not just about pay rises for the average Australian worker, it's a lot more complex and detailed than we have been led to believe. The bill itself has more layers than an onion, and as you try to peel it back you can't help but cry at that layers of complexity on top of more regulatory requirements for employers, especially those smaller businesses who can't afford lawyers and don't have the time or resources to be dragged in and out of negotiations.
Why is this government rushing into this—on such important legislation that will have unintended consequences—with Christmas around the corner? I don't believe anyone would negotiate a wage increase this year. As other independent members in this House have already raised, the government should allow time for complex issues such as this bill. If the changes are all about wage increases, do you think these changes will lead to wage increases in small businesses or will the increases lead to unintended consequences like job losses, where staff are put off, or higher costs which feed inflation? If the unintended consequences lead to inflation and job losses then that would be a collective responsibility of the parliament. How many in this House have worked outside of politics or had any industrial relations experience or worked in a small business?
The bill is sugar-coated with the aims of closing the gender equity pay gap and creating higher wages for low-paid workers, while burying more insidious parts of the bill. As the Council of Small Business of Australia has said, this bill could take small businesses away from managing, growing and innovating in their business and ultimately employing more staff. The council said they can support higher wages for low-paid sectors, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of our diverse small business community. As an independent member, I'm being forced to support this significant reform to industrial legislation with only minimal time to delve into this 260-page bill that would require consultation, with both big and small businesses as both these sectors have different needs and requirements to operate, not to mention those businesses that have language barriers and therefore would have limited understanding of how this piece of legislation would impact how they work, employ and operate now and into the future.
As a new government that seeks to govern fairly for all and to do things differently, not only are they rushing through this bill but they're also pitting big businesses and unions against each other, while neglecting to take into consideration how this bill would impact small businesses who are caught in the crossfire. Let me remind the people in this House: small business is the backbone of the Australian economy. They are the biggest employers in the country. In my Fowler electorate there are over 18,000 trading small businesses, with the majority owned and managed by migrants and refugees. In fact, one in three small businesses in Australia are run by migrants and refugees. According to the Refugee Council of Australia, refugees are the most entrepreneurial of small-business owners. They are twice as likely to become entrepreneurs, and two-thirds of new businesses created in Australia in the past decade have been founded by women. There has been a 46 percent jump in the number of women business owners over the past 20 years. Seeing such diverse representation in the small-business sector is important. But it will mean nothing if business owners are too intimidated to pursue their dreams due to the lengthy and complex negotiations as a result of these reforms.
My first and foremost concern is the lack of consultation with our communities. We haven't had a chance to consult with our constituents as well. It is not the first time that this government has failed to consult with my community. It's not the first time the diverse and multicultural communities of Fowler have been overlooked. How can we support anything that hasn't gone through the appropriate checks and balances to ensure the mum-and-pop corner shops, the banh mi bakeries, the family noodle shops won't be affected? In fact, after speaking to representatives from Cabramatta Chamber of Commerce and Liverpool chamber of commerce, both informed our office that they haven't received any substantial information on the bill. I, like many crossbench colleagues, have raised the fact that a bill this complex requires more consultation, and this has fallen on deaf ears. I support Senator Pocock's request to pass through the more agreeable parts of the bill by the end of the year and to allow for further consultation and amendments on the more contentious parts of the bill. This is a sensible approach to any bill of such importance and stature. But, as I understand it, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is reluctant to do so, and for that I question why. It's clear that this bill has been rushed through to avoid proper scrutiny, and it makes me concerned that the government are forcing us into voting on something that could have unintended consequences for both workers and employers.
The bill also expands a single-interest stream for allowing the Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interests to bargain together. This 'common interests' definition is broad and could range from geographical locations to funding models to anything in between. Without a substantive definition, there is so much scope to go wrong. This would open up a world of issues for small business, who could eventually be dragged into bargaining situations where they don't have the money to hire lawyers to enter these negotiations. I acknowledge that the workplace relations minister conceded that smaller businesses shouldn't be dragged to the negotiating table by a business with a much larger number of employees that had voted in favour of multi-employer bargaining. However, a small business is considered to be a business with a 15-employee headcount under the Fair Work Act. A business with 16 workers, including casuals, is your average for a restaurant or a busy cafe in my electorate. How can a family run business enter multi-employer bargaining situations when they lack the time, resources and funds to do so, as well as the language barrier?
They are no match for the union movement.
What we're seeing through this bill is the lumping together of big and small businesses, but they're not interchangeable. Amanda Rose, head of Small Business Women Australia and Western Sydney Women, told my office that she's one of the few people in her network who knew about the potential repercussions of these industrial relations reforms. Due to this bill, she believes that small businesses are now being demonised as greedy employers who refuse to pay their workers correctly. They've been told that if they can't pay their staff above-award rates then they deserve to be shut down. In the words of Amanda, 'Everyone acts like money grows on trees for small business'.
This is an entirely unfair characterisation for the majority of refugee and migrant small businesses I know, who play by the book, pay their taxes and work hard to achieve the Australian dream. Now, because of this bill, they're being unfairly grouped together with big businesses who can afford to pay for lawyers and who have the money and resources to enter bargaining agreements. Furthermore, many small-business owners in my area are from non-English speaking backgrounds: how does the government plan to educate them and assist them in the transitional period? I want to know what plans are in place to support small-business owners.
Having said that, I agree with the need for increased wages for the average Australian worker. I want to be clear that I do not oppose a wage increase; I just want to see a process that's open, transparent and consultative. It's important that as we strive to solve one problem we don't create greater problems for our community. I agree that the proposed supported bargaining stream could be beneficial to certain sectors of the workforce, including health care, aged-care workers and teachers, who all deserve to be paid fairly for the hard work that they do—although I must question why the government refuses to allow this and other aspects of the bill to pass through the House first, allowing us time to consider the multi-employer bargaining stream, instead of holding the House and Senate hostage.
The government have shown that they can offer wage increases to low-paid workers without the need for this bill. A recommendation by the royal commission into aged care suggested an increase in award wages to reflect the aged-care workers' true value. Based on this recommendation, temporary wage increases for the aged-care sector have been agreed to by the Fair Work Commission just last week, with the sector set to see a 15 per cent increase. I appreciate the efforts of the government to ensure our aged-care sector workers are paid appropriately for their endeavours, but if this were to apply similarly across low-paid sectors in the short term while we spent more time consulting on the more concerning aspects of the bill then surely we would be able to see wage boosts to those who need it by Christmas.
If the government are set on passing such a contentious, complex and, potentially, worrisome bill before Christmas, that's their prerogative. However, I support any measures to see a review process after 12 months to allow time for businesses to transition into this new system and so we can at least see the bill in practice before permanent implementation. Again, if we want to ensure that the policy is effective for the work then the government must be open to constructive review.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Chief Government Whip) (09:58): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022.
Australians need a pay rise. The member for Fowler might be interested to know that the people of Fowler need a pay rise. I have a sheet here which has every one of our electorates and their median weekly individual incomes. At the bottom of this sheet is Fowler, where the median income per week is $521. The people of Fowler need a pay rise. The people of Fowler need this House to pass this legislation so that the people of Fowler can get a pay rise. Half-way up that sheet sits my electorate, the electorate of Lalor. The individual median weekly income there is $801.
For those playing at home, I was a very bad maths student. Medians and averages always confuse me, so I checked this before I came into the chamber. The median for my electorate is $800 a week. Say that I have 100,000 electors: that means that 50,000 earn more than that and 50,000 earn less than that. If we take Fowler's figure of $521 median, half of that electorate earns less than that! Can you imagine paying the rent on less than $500 a week?
This country needs a pay rise. This is an election commitment from this government. We went to an election. We sat on those benches for nine long years while we watched wages flatline and while we watched profits rise. We sat on those benches and watched it. We watched year upon year upon year when nothing was done to get wages moving in this country. We've done a lot of work to prepare for government to come into this place, to have this day when we can do something to get wages moving in this country.
This is a thoughtful piece of legislation. It's a balanced piece of legislation. It has measures that will ensure that wages get moving. Yes, there's already been action taken by this government. Yes, let's remember that there are members in this House and people around the country who thought that a dollar-an-hour pay increase for our lowest-paid workers was going to shut down the economy. It didn't shut down the economy. The Henny Pennys—and there are lots of them in this room—got it wrong. The Henny Pennys in this chamber want to come in every day and talk about jobs and skills shortages. We know that our childcare policy, potentially, will create 37,000 effective full-time workers. What do we need to make that happen? We need not to have staff shortages in early education. How can we fix that? We can allow the small businesses in my electorate to do multibargaining to ensure that they can get some pay rises happening in the care industry to ensure that we can, therefore, get another 37,000 potential effective full-time workers across the economy. It makes sense to me; it sounds very thoughtful. I'd like to congratulate our government for being able to play three-dimensional chess in this way and produce an outcome.
The Henny Pennys need to understand how to attract and retain workers. I come out of education. There is a teacher shortage in my electorate that is absolutely diabolical. Principals and administrators in schools are showing up every day dreading the timetabling issue they're going to face. Do you think getting 151 members of parliament to speak in two chambers and avoid a quorum is difficult work? You try being the daily organiser in one of my local schools at the moment when you're likely to have six people ring that morning to say they can't make it on top of the six who weren't there yesterday. Teaching is not about putting an upright, breathing body in front of 25 children. It's complex work, and it relies mostly on relationships built over time. So our schools are struggling because of the skills and staffing shortage across sectors—across feminised sectors. Attracting and retaining staff in the care and the education sector is probably our biggest challenge.
What attracts people to a job? Let me see. Why was I attracted to teaching? I was attracted to teaching because I thought I could make a difference. When I made the decision to do teaching, did I say, 'I have a vocation,' and rush in there. No. I checked to see what hours I would work and what remuneration I would get and then I made a decision about whether teaching was going to set me and my children up as well as allow me to make a difference. To attract and retain staff, we need wages moving in this country. The Henny Pennys who want to see all the problems in the world need to come to grips with the fact that they need to be part of the solution. The good news is that today is the day when you can be part of the solution. You can come into this House and, if you care about fairness, you'll vote for this legislation. If you care about the families in your electorates, you'll vote for this legislation. If you care about gender equity, you'll vote for this legislation. If you care about the egalitarian ideas that this country was founded on, you'll vote for this legislation. If you care about the cost of living, here is part of your solution. Get this country a pay rise. Get these industries a pay rise, and the cost-of-living issues will be reduced without impacting inflation rates.
This is not a difficult day for us. This is a great day for this new government, because this legislation, as I said, is carefully thought out. It works with other policies that we've put through this parliament already. It's part of a solution that will see pressure come off families. It works with other pieces of legislation to reduce the pressure of cost of living. It is absolutely imperative that this parliament passes this piece of legislation. And I would suggest that any member who's going to speak on this bill today should check the median income in their electorate, because, let's face it, we're standing here and we're privileged. My income doesn't appear on that sheet as a median in an electorate in this country, and neither does the income of anyone in this chamber. Focus on the people in your electorates who are perhaps earning $521 a week and dealing with cost of living. Chances are that those on $521 a week are insecure workers. Chances are that if you're earning $521 a week you're working in a feminised industry. And chances are that those on $521 a week have kids.
This is part of a solution for this country, and I urge all in this chamber to focus on the needs of the people and the families they represent in this place. And if they think that the people in their electorate don't need this, they should focus for a moment on the people in my electorate, where insecure work is endemic. Don't look at the national figures. These things are patchy around the country. In my community I've got young people who've been in the workforce for six or seven years and are yet to have a full-time permanent job, who can't get into housing and can't get a loan, and they're not likely to. Until they can break into a secure job, that's not going to happen for them. And while you're focusing on communities like mine, think about the fact that most people who live in the seat of Lalor—70 per cent—travel outside of the electorate for work.
So, although in your electorates you may have a small business that is telling you they can't afford a pay increase for their workers, those workers probably live in my electorate. They're also doing a three-hour return commute, and paying for the petrol, to get to their job in your electorate, because my people work in aged-care centres in electorates outside of mine. They work in aged care in electorates outside of mine. They work across Melbourne. They travel for inordinate amounts of time. They leave their homes at six in the morning, after they've dropped their children at a local childcare centre, and they pick them up at six that evening. Give them a break. Give them a pay rise. You never know, they might even get away for a holiday.
(Quorum formed)
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER (Griffith) (10:10): There are absolutely elements of this bill that the Greens support. In particular, anything that increases wages is fantastic. The scrapping of the pay secrecy clauses is a good thing and something the Greens have been fighting for, for a long time. But I find it deeply ironic to listen to so many members of the Labor Party talk about the need to change the Fair Work Act and spend so much time attacking the Liberals for suppressing wages over the last 10 years, when so much of the legal architecture of the Fair Work Act was written by the Labor Party.
Government members interjecting—
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: You can check your own history. The foundations of enterprise bargaining, the foundations of restricting the right to strike, the foundations of collapsing trade union membership in this country, lie in the accord. Again, rather than yelling at me about all of this, check your own history. The foundations of the accord, in the 1990s and 1980s, were pretty simple. Wages were increasing faster than the rate of inflation, and one of the solutions was to subordinate industrial strength to the interests of the Labor Party and the national interest, which was more in the interests of big corporations than it was in the interests of workers.
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Order! Member for Solomon.
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker; they're very upset. And so they should be, because the history of that is disgraceful. Introducing enterprise bargaining isolated and crushed unions' abilities to fight for higher wages and better conditions. In fact, any union that fought against the principles of the accord, which included getting unions to agree to not push for wage increases above the rate of inflation in exchange for a social wage, many elements of which never came, including higher taxes on big corporations and expanding the welfare state—huge gaps were left in the Australian welfare state as a result. And here's what we saw: a collapse in trade union membership from over 50 per cent in the 1980s and 1990s to 14 per cent now.
If you look at the days lost to industrial action, it is a small—tiny—fraction compared to what it was in the 1980s and 1990s. You talk about moving towards multisector bargaining. You talk about—
Government members interjecting—
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: It was you guys that got rid of it, with enterprise bargaining. What's disgraceful about this is it hollowed out the capacity for the trade union movement to fight for better wages and conditions—and not just better wages. It was the metalworkers union in the 1980s that was attempting to use industry-wide bargaining to reduce the working week to 35 hours a week. They lost that capacity when the accord came through, and so much of the legal architecture of the Fair Work Act restricted unions' abilities to fight for anything. As a result, the strategy seemed to be that we weren't no longer going to get increases in wages and conditions as a result of industrial strength but that it was going to come via the Labor Party. What an absolute betrayal that was of the trade union movement.
One of the key elements of trade unions' abilities to organise in the workplace is having a basic right to strike. This bill does not bring a right to strike before parliament. The only way trade unions can strike now is by very prescribed and specific parts of the enterprise bargaining agreement. This means that outside of those negotiations on the enterprise bargaining agreement, when it expires, they have to apply first to the Fair Work Commission. If they get a ballot up and it's successful, they potentially get forced to conciliation.
The rules around striking on multisector bargaining now require giving 120 hours notice to the employer, which effectively removes a lot of the power of strike action as you're telling them basically five days in advance. Not only that, it adds a whole bunch of extra hurdles. What's worse is that even if they were able to get a large industrial strength, even if they were able to build up their union membership and capacity for workers, collectively, to fight for each other, an employer can hold that and refuse to an agreement—and effectively give the Fair Work Commission the right to intervene. That means that, the way this bill is written, an employer can say, 'No, we're absolutely not going to agree to an agreement, no matter what the union asks for, and we're just going to hold out,' until, basically, as the rules state, the Fair Work Commission can step in and force them into arbitration. That effectively takes where workers' rights and conditions should be won, which is via industrial strength and their capacity to fight and work together for better wages and conditions, and drags it more and more into the realm of lawyers.
The problem with that is that you're not going to give workers a collective reason to join a trade union. What we've seen over the last 20 to 30 years in the collapse of trade union density—from over 50 per cent in the 1980s to 14 per cent now, and seven per cent in the private sector—is workers' loss of even the experience of wielding collective strength. Certainly, the message to a lot of trade union members out there is that, if you think it's going to be the Labor Party that hands you, say, a reduction in the working week or big wage increases above even the rate of inflation, you've absolutely got another think coming. What we've seen from the Labor Party time and time again in the history of Fair Work legislation, even after the Rudd government's election, is a betrayal of the demands of the trade union movement that at the very least deserve the right to strike.
Government members interjecting—
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: Under your rules, if a group of workers want to go out and strike outside of enterprise bargaining agreements, they will—
Government members interjecting—
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: And you point to the coalition! Great, you're in agreement. You're in absolute agreement about restricting workers' ability to fight for collective benefits. The number of workers I've talked to when out doorknocking who went through the accord period and felt absolutely betrayed by the Labor Party because they crushed trade unions' capacity to fight for themselves and they said, 'Don't worry, the Labor Party's going to do it all'—instead, what we saw from that period of reform was a collapse in trade union membership, a collapse in days lost to industrial action, a massive increase in the share of national income going to profits and a collapse in the share of national income going to wages. It was a massive transfer of power away from ordinary working people towards big business and corporations and, I suppose, effectively towards the Labor Party, who seem more interested in representing the interests of big corporations than they do in giving workers their basic right to strike and fight for better wages and conditions.
I do find it sort of amusing that we've got this confused debate in parliament right now where the coalition gets up and talks about the danger of the renewal of trade unions' strength. Any increase in trade union membership and the capacity for ordinary workers to fight for better wages and conditions is an excellent thing. But check the stats. Right now in every state, bar New South Wales, the number of days lost to industrial action has decreased. In fact, if you look at the charts, it's basically a small fraction of what it used to be—a tiny fraction. Trade membership is at 14 per cent. What are you afraid of? Seriously! Meanwhile, on the government side, you talk about giving wage increases. If you want wages to increase and conditions to get better, give workers their right to strike. Don't put giant fines in the way of workers going out and striking when they need to to fight for better wages and conditions.
The history of the accord and the history of the betrayal of hundreds of thousands if not millions of trade union members—for what? It was for a national interest that seemed to be more about increasing corporate profits and improving the electoral success of the Labor Party than it was about improving workers' wages and conditions.
Government members interjecting—
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: You say, 'Is this about the Labor Party?' It is, because you're in government. You're in government. You could pass a bill right now that gave back to workers their right to strike. But you're not—much like with the gas industry, much like with big corporations and much like having a budget that forces ordinary working people to pay for an inflation crisis caused by big corporations such as gas corporations. The previous speaker talked about education. Well, why not fully fund public education and get it up to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard by taxing big corporations such as gas corporations? But you don't, because ultimately, as happens so often in this place, we have both sides, the coalition and the government, acting broadly in the interests of big corporations and not in the interests of ordinary working people. If you did, you would give back to workers their right to strike. You would give them the capacity to organise solidarity strikes. Under this bill it is still illegal for workers to go out in solidarity with another group of workers.
On top of all of that, despite not giving workers so many of the rights that they deserve, there is no increase in taxes on big corporations, no bringing dental into Medicare, none of the investment we need in public housing, and no full funding of public education or public health. Time and again, people out in the country are doing it tough and, rather than giving them the conditions, the money and the resources they need to live a good life, you continue to carry water for a corporate class in Australia that already has it so good, when so many people in your electorate are doing it tough.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: You keep yelling at me about this, but the message is very clear. And if you think that what happened in Griffith can't happen in electorates across the country, then you can absolutely think again.
(Quorum formed)
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:23): I'd like to thank the opposition shadow minister for gathering a crowd for me to make my contribution to this debate! I'd also like to respond to a couple of comments that were made in our young friend's speech just a moment ago. First of all, we actually do have the right to strike in this country, and we had the right to strike under the previous government. The right to strike was enshrined in the Fair Work Act. Yes, workers need to give notice during a bargaining period that they are going to strike. The Pfizer workers were on strike a few weeks ago, because they're in a bargain where their multinational employer isn't giving them a fair deal. Before entering this place I worked for a low-paid workers union, and the cleaners there got together, organised, collectively bargained and took strike action to get their employer to bargain with them. You may have heard of this company: Spotless cleaning. These workers, these low-paid cleaners at Melbourne airport, took them on and won the right to bargain through taking strike action. So, we do actually have the right to strike in this country, which is organised through the Fair Work Act. And we're one of the only countries in the developed world that has that right.
I want to address two key areas in this bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. There is so much good in this bill, and I'm so excited to be on this side of the House talking about the changes to our Fair Work Act that need to happen, because we're mature on this side. We acknowledge, within Labor, that the Fair Work Act hasn't done enough to help working people and that our bargaining system is broken. We've openly said that. So as a mature, responsible party—the oldest worker party in the world and the oldest political party in Australia—we are standing here to say that we need to reform the work that we started in our previous government. We need to make changes to give all workers access to bargaining. We're not having a tanty and punishing people for history.
What it sounds like to me, after our previous young friend's contribution, is that the Greens are going to vote against this bill. I think it will shock a lot of people out there that the Greens are going to vote against all the good that is in this bill, and which is actually going to address a number of the problems that we have in the Fair Work Act—for example, abolishing zombie agreements. I can't believe we're standing here in 2022 and John Howard is still having an impact on Australian workers. He has not been the prime minister since 2007, yet Australian workers are still employed on his AWAs today. Today, we still have workers being paid under those conditions. And why? Because when the Fair Work Act was introduced, there was a bridging period, and all these big companies, like Subway, rushed out there to register dodgy AWAs and these agreements. Now, here we are, many years later, and workers and unions have tried to get these individual agreements terminated, but it is too hard and too complex. Today we still have tens of thousands of workers on these zombie agreements. Why are they so bad? They undercut the award—not by a little bit but by a massive amount. They lock these workers into wages and conditions from back in 2007. They have the ability to cut penalty rates. They have the ability to cut allowances.
We all remember why AWAs were bad, but what people don't realise is that we still have workers stuck on these agreements. That is why it is so critical that we pass this legislation. Enough is enough! These workers should not have to wait until next year or the year after to be paid the minimum. These tens of thousands of Australian workers need to know that in their future they will finally be moved to the award or—if we're able to get through multi-employer bargaining—have the ability to bargain for better wages and conditions. We're not talking about small businesses, because a lot of them didn't know back in 2007 that you could register a dodgy agreement and move a whole bunch of workers on to it. They were paying people by the award. We're talking about big companies that used that opportunity back then to lock workers into below-award conditions.
I want to touch base on why multi-employer bargaining is needed and the way in which it has been set out. I want to remove the rhetoric and the scare from the opposition and some of the very big employer groups, and think about who determines that multi-employer bargaining can happen. It's not because a group of workers decides. Yes, they are critical, but they have to go to the commission and prove they have barriers to collectively bargain. There is still a test that is in place. The commission still needs to hear evidence to prove that they have barriers to bargaining. Who has barriers to bargaining right now? I can tell you, as somebody who used to work with low-paid workers, that cleaners and security guards are two of the groups. In security, the guards got together and collectively bargained with their employer, MSS. MSS would constantly say, 'We can't give you an above-award pay increase, even though you work at defence sites, even though you work at hospitals, even though you work in some very high-stress events, because another employer could come along and undercut our contract.' In contracting industries, the barrier to collective bargaining is that you might get undercut by another company. But we persevered and those guards did get an agreement with their employer. Wilson and G4S did the same. But then what happened? The contract went up for tender and they went for the cheaper contract. They were undercut. This is what happens in contracting industries if you can't collectively bargain together across employers. The other problem that we had is that whilst the employers said, 'We want to pay what Wilson is paying,' or, 'We want to pay what MSS is paying,' they actually couldn't. It's currently against the rules for two employers to have the same agreement—you have to have a slight difference. The barriers within Fair Work stop those guards and employers from being able to come together.
It's the same in cleaning. Some might remember the CleanStart campaign, which was about getting cleaners in the CBDs a decent wage. They were a lot of low-paid workers who were trapped. They came into the city, worked hard and just wanted a fair pay deal. After a lot of campaigning, those cleaners did get a collective agreement. But when it came up for negotiation, the employers didn't want to continue to bargain because they were losing contracts to people who paid less than they did. The cards were stacked against them.
Multi-employer bargaining isn't just about making sure that our lowest-paid workers get a fair deal; it's about making sure that their employers who work with them on an agreement don't get undercut and lose contracts or lose market share because of it. I heard one of the previous speakers mention that we didn't need it for our aged-care workers, that we had a royal commission which recommended it. Do we really need a royal commission into every low-paid industry to say that those workers need a wage increase? Do we need to have a royal commission into the broken bargaining system to say that those workers need a pay increase? No. We need to be grown-up and acknowledge in this place that we need sensible, smart and minor amendments to the Fair Work Act to allow those who have structural barriers to bargaining to be able to bargain. I welcome the increase for our aged-care workers, but it shouldn't have taken a royal commission. Those aged-care workers did try to get a multi-employer bargain up; it has been an ask of the sector for a long time. But the current Fair Work rules made it too complicated. It's one of the few areas where there were test cases and where we tried to get it working.
I acknowledge our early childhood educators, who for too long have also been locked out of a decent wage increase. This is where multiple employers are doing a similar job, where the federal government is the funder. Again, it is too complex and too hard—they didn't meet the public interest test that was set by the commission. And that's what it comes back to: the commission has to decide that it's in that interest, but that there are significant structural barriers to workers reaching a bargain and then allow multi-employer bargaining to occur. This is sensible reform. This will actually help people who haven't had the opportunity to bargain collectively to be able to bargain.
There's so much good in this bill; it addresses a lot of what's broken in our system. I strongly encourage everybody to reach out to those workers and to find out how it will actually help them. The secure jobs, better pay bill is smart and it is needed. Australia workers shouldn't have to wait to be able to get their rights and fairness in the workplace.
Ms WARE (Hughes) (10:33): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022.
Any industrial relations legislation must encompass increases both in productivity and real wages. This bill does not do this. Before they were in government, those opposite developed a mantra that 'everything is going up except for your wages'. Now that they are in government, their own budget forecasts show that real wages will not increase in the near future. The minister who introduced this bill said that it will give a better go to the workers. However, there is no evidence that these reforms will actually deliver higher wages. In fact, based on all of the comments from employers so far, the evidence is to the contrary.
The only things that this legislation will increase are strikes and job losses. The two major flaws in this proposed legislation are multi-employer bargaining and the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. These two propositions, particularly when combined, will mark a return to with Whitlamesque-style industrial relations. No wonder the CFMMEU's Victorian secretary, John Setka, said he was impressed by the minister's move to scrap the ABCC and the building code. Mr Setka specifically said, 'We will now have the power to go after non-union sites'. That was John Setka on 28 October 2022.
Business groups across Australia—small, medium and large—are united in their opposition to the changes, in particular to the multi-employer bargaining. Of particular concern is the fact that the bill, if passed, will allow unions into small businesses which have never before had to deal with them. Small businesses are being unfairly targeted here. For small businesses the changes proposed in this bill will be complicated and expensive. Small businesses don't have HR departments and lawyers on standby to help them wade through these complex changes. In this economic climate, one would hope that the government would be doing all it can to make life easier for small businesses, particularly those that are building our houses, constructing our apartments and building our infrastructure. Given the Albanese government's stated commitment to increasing housing opportunities for all Australians, one would expect that the government would be doing all it can to ease the burdens, particularly on the building and construction industry.
Within my electorate of Hughes this bill is important for two reasons. Firstly, more than 20 per cent of my electorate are employed in the building and construction industry, many as the owners of small businesses. Secondly, the current median house price in Hughes sits at around $1.5 million, with more than 25,000 households with mortgages. Cost of housing is very important to my constituents. It was not very long ago that Australians purchased their first home and the cost was around 3.3 times the average Australian income. It now sits at just over 10 times. The building and construction industry provides a clear correlation to the cost of Australian housing.
Let's look at the history of the commission. It was established in part, by the coalition government, to help alleviate the soaring costs of housing by seeking compliance with workplace relations law within the building and construction industry. In this place, we speak often about integrity, transparency and good governance. It is therefore incredulous that in one of its first acts of power the Albanese Labor government has once again embraced its union family and is busily dismantling the construction watchdog.
The construction industry is Australia's fifth-largest industry in terms of gross domestic product. It contributes around eight per cent of GDP and employs over 1.1 million Australians. The largest employer industry in the Hughes electorate is the construction industry. These are mostly small business owners, sole traders, mum and dad construction businesses. The building commission has worked hard to protect these small businesses from bullying, intimidation and coercion by unions.
We also speak about women in the workplace. Around 150,000 women work on construction sites in Australia. The government itself is aware of the well-publicised reports of bullying and sexual harassment against women on construction sites. Language and behaviour that we're trying to curb in this workplace is now going to be given carte blanche if the building commission is abolished.
If we look at the history of the commission it has had many successes in the courts. As a result of its investigations the CFMMEU are currently respondents in countless matters that are currently before the courts. It has been awarded almost $2 million in penalties against it in the last financial year. The commission has achieved a successful outcome in 80 of 88 cases resolved against the CFMMEU. This is a success rate of 91 per cent. This figure alone suggests that the ABCC must be retained. It is no wonder that John Setka has embraced this bill. When the former Rudd government commissioned the late Hon. Justice Murray Wilcox KC to report on the building and construction industry, His Honour recommended that a specialist construction inquiry body be retained. When even a Labor government report acknowledges the need for a building and construction regulator, it is clear that the new Albanese government is ignoring advice, intending to repeat the errors of the Rudd government with industrial relations and place its friendship with unions above safety, integrity, and productivity on building sites. An industrial relations framework must be designed to lift both productivity and wages. Instead, this legislation will do neither.
And it's not just us on this side of the House that do not like the bill, and in that regard I note the comments made earlier today by the member for Griffith. Looking at what business groups have said recently, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said that compulsory multi-employer bargaining is a seismic shift to Australia's workplace relations system. Jennifer Westacott of the Business Council of Australia has said:
We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment.
The overwhelming number of issues in Labor's bill relate to bargaining, particularly the provisions relating to multi-employer bargaining. Compulsory multi-employer bargaining reverses decades of consensus within the workplace relations system. This bill allows the Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interests to bargain together. Unions will now be able to apply to compel employers to bargain together if the move has the support of the majority of employees, backed by the right to strike.
I've had feedback from small businesses in my electorate raising concerns about the proposed allowance of multi-employer bargaining. Small-business owners, who will almost always work in the business themselves, will now have to spend a significant amount of time away from their work, negotiating a joint bargaining position with other employers. These are small businesses who don't have large HR departments and don't have large teams of lawyers on hand to assist them. After some form of agreement, the small-business owners would then need to negotiate with salaried union representatives who don't have a small business on the line and who have significantly more time to dedicate to this process. It is incumbent upon all of us to protect small business, the engine room of our economy. I urge this government to think very carefully about increasing the difficulties for small business that will occur if this bill is made law.
To conclude, I note that there are two fundamental flaws with this legislation.
An honourable member: Only two?
Ms WARE: 'Fundamental'. The first is the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which has provided industrial relations protections to the building and construction industry and to workers for many years. It must be maintained. Secondly, compulsory employer bargaining should be looked at and removed. I urge the government to rethink this bill, especially around the abolition of those two. Thank you.
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (10:43): Our government wants to see an economy that works for all Australians. People in our communities deserve to have good jobs with the security, pay fairness and proper protections that are part of good jobs. To achieve this, we need laws that are fit for purpose and that meet the needs of Australians today, and that is what the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is designed to do. This bill will fix the bargaining system, and it will help to get wages moving again. This was a key plank that our government fought for in the election campaign, and it is a key plank that we'll deliver on now.
For people in my community, in professions like health care, aged care, disability support and early childcare support, this bill is designed to get them the pay rise they deserve. In aged care in my community, across Jagajaga we have something like 30 providers of aged care services, residential care, home care, and other forms of care. I talk to the people who work in these industries, and they know it's important work that they do, but they also know it's not easy work. When they speak to aged-care workers they tell me they love what they do. They love getting to know the people they support, their partners, the families who come in with that person. They love being an important part of their circle.
The care takes many forms. It's not just helping an older person get up and about. It's about the friendships you make, that mean for an older person they feel a bit less alone and more connected to the wider world. So it's complex work. It's important work. But for too long it's been under-recognised. We have not recognised the importance of the people who work in this vital sector to make sure that they are there for older people and for all of us in our community. They have had to wait far too long for a pay rise. In fact, it took a royal commission. It took a government that was prepared to back them in, to get their pay rise, for aged-care workers to get it. If you need an example of how wages haven't been moving in this country, if you need an example of how those on the opposite side left low-paid workers behind, aged-care workers are an excellent example.
Another industry I will talk about in relation to this bill is early childhood education. There are 135 childcare providers in Jagajaga, a lot of centres with a lot of educators supporting a lot of local kids and families. The workers and educators at these centres also do really important essential work. Again, for too long, we have undervalued this work. We have pretended that it is not complex, that it is not important to be the person responsible for helping to bring up the smallest people in our community, that it is not important work to be guiding the next generation. This is vital work, yet we have not recognised these important workers with the wages and conditions they should have.
The reason we haven't done this is simply that the system is not set up to deliver these workers a pay rise. These people, who are mainly women working in a heavily feminised industry, have not been getting the pay rises they deserve. We saw the situation last year, as we've seen highlighted by the minister, where early childhood educators were not able to get a pay rise because they couldn't find an appropriate male comparator group. There is no male comparator group! Where are the men working in early education? I'd love to see some. They're not there at the moment, mainly because wages are too low. So we're in an impossible bind here, that contributed to these early educators missing out on a pay rise.
This bill aims to reverse that. It will reverse the decades of really unfair outcomes for women workers in our community. Women who are holding up the caring economy will be supported by this bill to get the pay rises they deserve. The changes in this bill take away that need to find a male comparator group. They make it clear that sex discrimination is not necessary to establish that a certain type of work is undervalued. These changes will enable better access to bargaining for sectors like early childhood education and aged care. It will help workers to negotiate better pay and conditions, and that is something that everyone in this House should regard as a win.
We have spent a pandemic telling the women working in these areas that they are essential workers. We have spent a pandemic holding them up and saying, 'You've kept us going.' The very least the people in this House could do is make sure that these people get a pay rise. These industries have been undervalued. It is unfair and it is something that we have to fix. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to realise that for too long we've failed in this space.
We have had 10 years of drift and denial, an almost wilful ignorance, of the reality that workers in our country are facing. Now we seem to see that those opposite continue to want to deny that people in these sectors, women in these sectors, are underpaid. Under those opposite, we saw that wages were kept low in what seemed to be a deliberate design feature. In fact, at one point, I believe it was called out as a deliberate design feature of the system. Rather than bringing people together, rather than trying to make sure that we're getting workers, employees and industry representatives on the same page, what we've seen from those opposite is a desire to increase conflict.
We've seen a rise in insecure work. We've seen that, in more households, people don't know what their income will look like for the week because their job is insecure, and they're doing all of this at a time when we know that the cost of living is increasing. The cost of living is increasing but wages are not increasing. Unemployment is low but wages are still not increasing. Yet, it seems that, for years and years, we've been told that, if you want to get wages moving again, you just need to wait until unemployment is low. Well, unemployment is low and that hasn't happened, so that magic pudding isn't really a magic pudding. It's not going to happen. This government has recognised that. We've recognised that you can't just rely on unemployment being low for wages to magically start rising. We've recognised that it is the work of government to make sure that people who are in insecure work in low-paid industries who have missed out on the benefits of pay rises are finally noticed and have their needs addressed.
We've noticed the cost-of-living pressures that people across our communities are facing. They are very real. I know it is not easy for a lot of people in my community at the moment. We know that a decade of wage stagnation has absolutely contributed to those cost-of-living pressures. In a situation where inflation is running at more than seven per cent, and wages are at about 2½ per cent, it is absolutely incumbent on the government and on everyone in this place to act. We have to find ways to get wages moving again, and that is a huge part of what we are aiming to achieve with this bill. The Australian people were clear at the election. They've had enough of the previous approach to wages. They have seen that their wages haven't gone up as they should have over the past decade. They do want a change. They want this place to be on their side and to be backing in the wage increases they deserve, so I urge everyone in this place to take that very seriously as we debate this bill and as we go forward.
I want to see better conditions for people in my community and in communities across Australia who deserve better, whether they're a worker in a sector that will benefit from this bill, whether they have a family member in this sector who helps to pay the bills in their household, or whether they're someone who benefits from the work people do in that sector. I know people in Jagajaga value people in industries like early childhood education, aged care and health care. The parents who take their kids down to child care know the connections that those educators are making with their children. They know that's important work. They know the impact that has on their child every single day. They want to see those workers get the pay rise which they deserve and which they've been denied for far too long. Our early childhood educators create the environment that helps our kids grow and develop and start on their education journey. We cannot value it highly enough. Aged care, as I said, is another area where in the past we have not recognised the key work that the workers in those industries have done. It took our government to deliver a pay rise for them. After so long, these workers deserve better pay and conditions.
We need this bill as a strong foundation to continue to build a more equitable and fair system across our country for all of our communities. This is good for workers. It's good for the economy. It will be good for Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:53): They say that Christmas is the time for giving. Clearly this time in this parliament is a time for the ALP to give back to their union paymasters. We know that the ALP are constantly receiving financial assistance from the unions, and now the unions are saying, 'Righto, it's time to give us something back.' And the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 will fundamentally change the way industrial relations is dealt with in this country. It will wind back the clock for the construction industry. I'm looking across the aisle. Can any one of those members opposite raise their hand and say: 'I have worked—not just turned up on a building site in hi-vis and a hard hat—on building sites'?
A government member: I note a number of people have raised their hands!
Mr WALLACE: Mining doesn't count. You should come over this side, because you will know the absolute bullying and intimidation that the CFMMEU perpetrate on every building site. If you guys are serious, those of you who say that you've worked in the building industry, come over here. Because this is the side of politics that supports the building industry, as opposed to the CFMMEU. You guys talk the big talk about looking after workplaces and having respectful workplaces.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Order! I remind the honourable member to refer to government members respectfully.
Mr WALLACE: I will refer through the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those opposite should know about the bullying and intimidation that the CFMMEU perpetrate on every building site, all the time.
Ms McBain: It's embarrassing. It's incorrect.
Mr WALLACE: Embarrassing? That's unbelievable. I'll take the interjection. Those opposite have absolutely no idea about the bullying and intimidation. If they were serious, they would know about what happens. Yet, they want to abolish the ABCC. There are builders and subcontractors around this country who may not be members of the CFMMEU, but they are good, hardworking mum-and-dad businesses. All they want to do is go to work, feed their families and put their kids through school. What we see through the bullying tactics of the CFMMEU are things like third line forcing. If you don't sign up to a CFMMEU EBA, you'll be black banned. Not just from this site, but—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: The member for Eden-Monaro is shaking her head as if the say this doesn't happen. If the member for Eden-Monaro seriously thinks this doesn't happen, she's living in la-la land. This happens around Australia all the time. Small businesses are put out of business, because the CFMMEU drive them out of business. If you have never seen that, member for Eden-Monaro, you have not been involved in the building industry.
This bill will remove and abolish the tough cop on the beat. Let me run through some stats. The Australian Building and Construction Commission was reintroduced in 2016. We went to a double-dissolution election over it. Since that time, since we reintroduced the ABCC—after the Labor Party had abolished it in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era—the average rate of industrial days lost per 1,000 employees dropped by 90 per cent. Let me read that again: since the ABCC relaunched, the average rate of industrial days lost per 1,000 employees dropped by 90 per cent. As of September 2022, the ABCC had imposed nearly $18.6 million in penalties and secured almost $13.6 million in payments for contractors since its inception.
Those members opposite talk the big talk about justice and looking after people in the workplace. What they don't talk about is what the Federal Court has consistently said about the CFMMEU: that it is the biggest recidivist organisation in this country. It continuously breaks laws and cops fines but considers those fines as the cost of doing business. What we've heard from those members opposite is, rather than speeches about this bill, more like pre-selection speeches to their own base. But let me keep going: as of 19 September 2022, the ABCC had achieved a successful outcome in 105 of its 114 cases. That's successful outcomes in 105 of 114 cases! That's a rate of 92 per cent—
Mr Perrett: How many of those were pursuing wages, Andrew? Zero!
Mr WALLACE: The member for Moreton is interjecting. I reckon if the member for Moreton had a 92 per cent success rate when he was a solicitor, that would be pretty good figures!
As we speak, there are around 30 CFMEU representatives currently before the courts. If those members opposite want to go on the record and support the CFMEU when the Federal Court has found that they are the biggest recidivist organisation in breaking industrial laws in this country, then go for your lives! Thirty CFMEU representatives are currently before the courts, with the CFMEU accounting for around 1,663 contraventions since the reintroduction of the ABCC. These are unlawful activities on projects like schools, hospitals, roads and bridges. Ernst & Young have recently done a study to identify what the costs of abolishing the ABCC are. Do you know what those costs are? The estimated costs are around $47 billion—
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence!
Mr Perrett: Is he?
Mr WALLACE: That is exactly right, member for Moreton! And yet, because of this conduct that will go unchecked when the ABCC is abolished, every single taxpayer in this country is going to be paying more money for more construction.
Members opposite, in the Labor government, who want to see the abolition of the ABCC can talk the big talk, but just wait and see. The proof will be in the pudding, with the amount of disputation that will rise as a result of this bill. Disputation will increase, absolutely. This bill is about secure jobs and better pay—we'll see how secure the jobs are and the better pay when the industrial disputes increase significantly.
Of course, their Assistant Treasurer is on the record as saying, 'Well, look, we accept that industrial disputes are going to increase as a result of this bill.' I don't see any reference in the name of this bill to increased industrial disputes, but that is exactly what will happen.
Mr Ro b Mitchell: It doesn't say ban stickers on helmets either!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for McEwen!
Mr WALLACE: Those members opposite did not run any reference whatsoever during the campaign to pattern bargaining. There was no reference to pattern bargaining—
A government member: Pattern bargaining?
Mr WALLACE: If you don't understand what that is, look it up! They did not go to the electorate with this policy, so they don't have a mandate to introduce pattern bargaining. But that is exactly what they're trying to do through this bill. And shame on the government for gagging this debate and reducing the opportunity for members to speak on this bill.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I thank, I think, the member for Fisher. I call the member for Cunningham.
Ms BYRNES (Cunningham) (11:03): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022.
I know that those opposite just don't get it, that Australian workers have had to deal with insecure work and having their wages held back for far too long. It's not knowing if you'll get enough shifts to pay the rent and nervously waiting on the end of the phone or an app to find out. It's not being able to plan ahead for child care for children, not knowing whether you'll be able to provide care and support for your elderly parents, and not being sure if your temporary contract will be renewed. Workers have seen their wages and conditions slowly eroded. We know that under the previous government wages were deliberately kept low and secure work was rampant.
The Labor Party has always fought for Australian workers, and it won't stop. It is in our DNA and it is a core value of each and every one of us, and that is what this bill is about—our government standing up for workers after wages and conditions have deteriorated. This bill is the first step of the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations reforms. By amending the Fair Work Act with improved job security and gender equity, we will deliver across three main themes: improving workplace conditions and protections, boosting bargaining, and restoring fairness and integrity to fair work institutions. The Fair Work Act needs to do better at living up to its name. We know this, unions and workers know this, and business understands this too. This bill delivers on a number of election commitments that Labor made, and it also acts on a range of outcomes from the Jobs and Skills Summit.
Our approach reflects our history and our values, enabling working people and their unions to better advocate for better pay and conditions and improving the capacity of businesses and employees to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Labor understands that the economy is driven by working Australians, and they deserve stronger wages growth and secure jobs.
We are improving gender equity by allowing workers to discuss pay with their colleagues and empowering the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for workers in low-paid, female dominated industries, such as the care sector. We are also improving job security by enshrining it as an objective of the Fair Work Act. This sends a clear message on the importance of job security in the workplace relations system. The Fair Work Commission will also be required to factor in job security when performing its functions, such as when they're updating modern awards. To stop endlessly rolling fixed-term contracts, we are delivering on our election commitment to limit the use of these contracts beyond two years or two consecutive contracts, whichever is shorter. Exemptions will apply when genuinely necessary and appropriate.
We are implementing an outcome of the Jobs and Skills Summit to provide Australians with stronger access to flexible working arrangements. We are also introducing a new prohibition of sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act, including a new dispute resolution mechanism. This is in line with recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, and it helps protect Australian workers. We are also extending protections against workplace discrimination by adding breastfeeding, gender identity and intersex status to the list of prohibited characteristics in the Fair Work Act. We are deterring underpayments by prohibiting employers from advertising jobs with rates of pay that breach the Fair Work Act. Additionally, we are amending the small claims process to support the recovery of underpayment, and we will progress separate legislation that will finally make wage theft a criminal offence. Arthur Rorris from the South Coast Labor Council in my electorate was instrumental in exposing wage theft in the Illawarra.
We know the current system isn't working. Only 14 per cent of workers are on in-date enterprise agreements, and workers who on these agreements earn more than those on award rates. Businesses also enjoy more flexibility and productivity with enterprise agreements, but currently these are less available to small and medium sized businesses. This bill makes important improvements to increase of uptake of enterprise agreements seeking to drive up wages and productivity. We want to ensure that there are greater options for workers and employers seeking to create an agreement. To free up these negotiations, we are removing unnecessary limitations on access to single and multi-employer bargaining agreements.
We also want to ensure that enterprise bargaining is conducted in good faith. Negotiations can undoubtedly become heated and passionate. I know this, as I have been involved in negotiations from an employee's perspective here in this building. There are competing demands and ideas about what is best for the organisation and conflicting perceptions about how much workers are entitled to and how much employers can afford. These robust negotiations are to be expected. It is part of the process, and it is why enterprise bargaining is so important, but it has to be fair. Conversations and debate are formalised, with both parties understanding the rules and procedures. However, there are certain tactics that go beyond what is reasonable.
The threat of termination of an enterprise agreement during enterprise bargaining negotiations is unethical and wrong. It undermines the spirit of the entire process. When agreements are terminated, employees can be forced back onto the modern award, with less pay and fewer conditions. This can be used as a tactic to threaten workers who are trying to pursue improvements to the agreement or even just trying to hold on to what they have. We've certainly seen that here.
To eliminate the potential abuse of this process, we are introducing new limits on the circumstances under which the Fair Work Commission may approve applications to terminate enterprise agreements. These changes are specifically designed to prevent the undermining of bargaining processes or to reduce employees' pay and conditions. The bargaining process is involved, and it has strict procedures and rules that must be followed. For larger organisations that can afford industrial relations specialists, this is less of an issue. But we know that to increase the rate of enterprise bargaining we need to support small and medium-size businesses to engage in the process.
That is why we have committed to supporting the Fair Work Commission with $8.9 million over three years to increase its capacity to help employers and employees reach mutually beneficial arrangements. This will help to provide the support that businesses need. This funding builds on our government's investments in the Fair Work Commission, which will enable it to play a greater role in Australia's workplace relations.
The Fair Work Commission will also be enhanced by the creation of two new expert panels, the Pay Equity Expert Panel and the Care and Community Sector Panel. Additionally, a specialised research unit will improve the commission's capacity to assess pay equity claims and help address workforce challenges. By establishing these panels, we are ensuring that the Fair Work Commission has the specific expertise it needs to deliver pay equity—expertise that will reflect the lived experiences of our early childhood educators and of our aged-care and disability support workers. And to make it easier for the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for workers in these industries, we are creating a statutory equal remuneration principle. This principle will remove the need for a male comparator in order to progress equal pay claims, which is a major barrier in Australia's highly gender segregated workforce. It will also ensure that gender based assumptions are not considered when assessing work value.
The measures introduced in this bill are urgent and they are vital to modernising our bargaining system and getting wages moving again, because wage growth will not happen automatically. Understandably, there has been a lot of interest in the bill, and the government has consulted closely with business groups, unions and experts, particularly over the last week but also with our Jobs and Skills Summits held across the country. They've led to some constructive amendments and addressed concerns around bargaining and the better off overall test. They are also giving businesses 12 months to adjust to the fixed-term contract changes. These are sensible improvements to the bill's implementation.
These are just some of the changes that the Albanese Labor government is legislating to make our workplaces fairer for Australian workers, to help wage growth and improve job security. Last week, after advocacy by unions, the sector and the Albanese Labor government, the Fair Work Commission made an interim decision for an increase to minimum wages of at least 15 per cent for aged-care workers in direct-care roles on a number of different awards. This is on top of the 5.2 per cent increase to the minimum wage in July. We are delivering cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. We are increasing paid parental leave. And with this bill we are helping to get wages moving and promoting secure jobs.
I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is delivering for working Australians. Australian workers deserve fair pay and conditions and they deserve a system that works for them. That is why I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Dr RYAN (Kooyong) (11:14): Some of the legislation that comes to this chamber is very straightforward—almost administrative. Some of the legislation that we vote on is complex and significant, like this week's landmark Respect@Work package, which was the result of years of work by Kate Jenkins. Inquiries, reports and consultations are all processes that keep the public informed, and they provide opportunities to contribute to the shaping of policy. They are processes that make legislation stronger.
To date, the Albanese government has been consultative, collaborative and collegiate when it's come to the significant reforms that it has pursued—the Climate Change Bill and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, in particular. This secure jobs, better pay bill was introduced just 10 days ago. We've had three sitting days with this bill, two since the government briefed the crossbench on this package. There are 243 pages of legislation, to start with, and this week we've been sent pages of government amendments to their own bill. The government is, in effect, writing this legislation almost in real time. This is not the way that legislation should work.
I regularly meet with and speak to early childhood educators, teachers, aged-care workers and disability carers who live and work in Kooyong. Had this bill been provided to parliament sooner or had the vote not been pushed so hurriedly, these workers would have had the opportunity to understand the proposal being put to parliament on their behalf, and I would have had the opportunity to hear and represent their views. The people of Kooyong, like the rest of the Australian public, have not had an opportunity to understand what is being proposed by this government in these complex and significant reforms.
Over the last week, I've been briefed on this bill by half a dozen peak body groups, here in Parliament House, led by professional lobbyists with parliamentary access, all of whom were given an opportunity to read and analyse this bill before it was introduced to parliament. Many of them saw this bill before the crossbench did. Those briefings have been the source of much of the information that the crossbenchers have on this bill. We have not had enough time to consult widely. We have not had enough time to properly analyse this complex, contested legislation. We have not had time to canvass the constituents that we hope to represent. This is not politics done differently.
Despite all of this, I will be voting to pass this bill. It's clear that we need to support our lower paid workers better, especially those in the feminised industries—child care and aged care. We know that inflation and the recent increase in the cost of living, in concert with the failure of wages to increase with the CPI, have resulted in real stress and real difficulty for many Australians.
I welcome the government's move to narrow the unacceptable gender pay gap of 14.1 per cent by appointing commissioners to address pay equity and to focus on the care and community sector. I welcome the improvements to the better off overall test and the move to improve sexual harassment and other discrimination protections in the workplace. Removal of pay secrecy clauses will increase transparency. Streamlining approvals of enterprise agreements makes sense. Prohibiting illegal pay rate advertisements is the right thing to do. Sunsetting zombie agreements—none of us have anything against zombies but this is a good change to the law.
There are, however, concerns about the more complex aspects of this bill. The proposal that a single employee can initiate bargaining on behalf of all employees in an organisation means that employees could face repeated or ongoing challenges to pay scales. This bill treats small businesses with 15 employees the same way it does those with 50,000. While Bunnings and Coles are in a position to take on complex workplace negotiations with lawyers and HR personnel, it's not reasonable to expect the same from a grocer in Hawthorn, a cafe owner in Balwyn or a nursery owner in Surry Hills. Many business owners are feeling anxious about what they've heard about multi-enterprise bargaining. They worry that their staff will be forced into agreements, forged by other businesses, that they can't afford or that won't work for their business, with only a conciliation process.
This is not what this IR bill proposes but business owners are right to feel anxious. The changes that the government is proposing have not been properly explained to the public, and business owners have not been afforded the opportunity to contribute to this discussion, to ask questions of the government or their MPs, to wrap their heads around this huge bill. Small-business owners, in particular, have been struggling for years now and I believe that they deserve to be included in these important policy reforms.
This legislation markedly expands the role of the Fair Work Commission. Appointments to that commission will now take on even greater significance. We heard in this House yesterday, from the Attorney-General, that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was stacked with political appointees in the last government. What assurance do we have that this will not happen with this government and the Fair Work Commission?
I have concerns about detail of parts of this bill, but I will vote for the bill because I'm not convinced that there's any evidence behind the claims that some lobby groups are making about it, particularly that multi-employer bargaining arrangements, closely supervised by the Fair Work Commission, could lead to mass strikes in the street; and because I do believe that affording employees a bit more standing in negotiations with their employers will increase their likelihood of securing reasonable pay rises and improved workplace conditions.
For years now the stagnant wage growth and slowing of productivity increases in this country have impacted on what all Australian workers want and deserve: reasonable shift allocations, job security, decent pay. The government shouldn't enter into every workplace in the country and tell employers what to do with their staff and with their business. Those negotiations should happen in workplaces and businesses between an employer and the people that they employ. This bill means that more of those sorts of negotiations are able to begin, and that if there is a stalemate they can be bumped up to the umpire to resolve fairly and, hopefully, quickly.
My concern is that the devil may be in the detail and that we have not been afforded sufficient opportunity to study the detail of this bill. This is a big, complex omnibus bill. If the wheels fall off the omnibus it's on the heads of this government. I'm not entirely satisfied with this legislation, but I believe that people across this country who work hard as carers, educators, factory staff—those many Australians who are essential workers throughout the pandemic; those who are finding it harder and harder to afford the basics, to pay their rent, to pay their mortgage, to send their kids to school camps, or to have that holiday that they have been denied for three years—deserve a better shot when they ask for a pay rise. I believe that the clearly positive parts of this bill outweigh the unclear, contested parts of it.
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (11:22): Make no mistake, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is among the most significant reforms this parliament will consider. Workers' job security, work conditions and wages have been whittled away, little bit little, over almost 10 years of coalition governments. The previous government proudly admitted their intent to keep wages low, shamefully acknowledging it was a deliberate design feature of their so-called economic management approach. Insecure work and low wages were considered by the coalition, regardless of the pain inflicted on workers and their families.
This legislation is unashamedly about creating a fairer workplace. It's about giving workers job security. It's about ending the era of deliberate wage stagnation. At a time when the pressures of global inflation are hitting every household, our workplace laws are outdated and no longer fit for purpose. Anyone who genuinely cares about the cost-of-living impacts on hard-working people can't, in good conscience, support the ongoing wage stagnation built into the current system.
Earlier this year, prior to the election of the Albanese government, I hosted a secure jobs, better pay forum in my electorate with the now Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The impact of the previous government's mean and repressive industrial relations policy was starkly clear. Among those who spoke were aged-care workers, people who dedicate themselves to looking after the frail and aged in our community. I thank them for their service and care. They spoke of being pushed to breaking point, in tears, expected to do more and more while receiving no meaningful pay rise for years. We heard similar stories from other sectors, distressing stories from workers locked into a cost-of-living squeeze because of low wages and feeling no way out.
People in my electorate of Corangamite are working hard. They take pride in their work. Nevertheless, they are going backwards financially after years of wage stagnation and rising costs. Unlike the previous government, the Albanese government is not prepared to sit idly by and do nothing to alleviate their pain. That's why these amendments to the Fair Work Act will deliver reforms across three broad themes: improving job security and gender equity; improving workplace conditions and protections; and boosting bargaining and restoring fairness and integrity to fair work institutions. We will abolish the draconian ABCC.
The Albanese government believes that getting wages moving is especially urgent in female dominated sectors. The gender pay gap still sits at an unacceptable 14.1 per cent. We've already made a submission to the Fair Work Commission that unequivocally supported a wage increase. Aged-care workers across our nation are in line for a much-deserved pay rise, with the Fair Work Commission making an interim decision for an increase in minimum wages of at least 15 per cent for aged-care workers in direct care. I know many MPs in this room fought for this. It should have happened long ago. For a decade, coalition governments told us that low unemployment would create pressure to push up wages. That didn't happen. That's why we need to change the law to promote job security, close the gender pay gap and get wages moving.
Years ago, job security was defined simply as the difference between being a casual or a permanent employee. Job security now takes many different complex forms. Today there's the gig economy, labour hire, new forms of insecurity for part-time employees and rolling fixed-term contracts which effectively amount to a permanent probation period for employees. Legislation just hasn't kept pace with these work changes. We need fair, effective, up-to-date laws that deliver fairer outcomes for workers, reasonable wages and, importantly, better productivity gains for employers.
This bill is delivering in multiple ways on a raft of significant areas needing reform. Chief amongst the reforms is gender equity, which this legislation places at the heart of the fair work system. The Fair Work Commission will be required to take gender equity into account in all the decisions it makes. Over many years, present laws have placed obstacles in the path of workers seeking equal pay. These reforms will reverse decades of unfair outcomes for female workers by removing the need to find male workplace comparators in making decisions on wages. Last year, for example, our early childhood educators, including educators in my electorate, were unable to win a pay rise because they couldn't find an appropriate male comparator. There is not a male comparison group, and it was an impossible task. We're also stamping out workplace sexual harassment because that's central to achieving safe, productive and gender equitable workplaces. Under the previous government, there was no express prohibition of sexual harassment under the Fair Work Act. We're fixing that.
Many Australians are struggling to manage their work and care responsibilities. Women still take the main responsibility for caring work. They're often forced to drop out of the workforce or to take lower paid or less secure employment as a result. This is a major contributor to widening the gender pay gap and reducing superannuation for women as they move towards retirement. Flexible working arrangements in this legislation will not only help parents and carers; they'll also provide job security and an economic lifeline to employees with disability, older Australians, and workers experiencing family and domestic violence.
The number of workers on fixed-term contracts has increased by over 50 per cent since 1998. More than half of all employers engaged on fixed-term contracts are women. This bill will limit the use of fixed-term contracts for the same role beyond two years or two consecutive contracts, whichever is shorter. This bill also makes it unlawful to advertise a job for less than the applicable minimum rate. That should have been the case many years ago. Australia's bargaining system is not working effectively. It is broken, and it has not worked for a long time.
Yet we know that bargaining delivers simpler and more tailored workplace arrangements for business and, on average, more pay for workers each week, compared to those on awards. This bill honours commitments the government made at the Jobs and Skills Summit in September, and it will also make the better off overall test simpler, flexible and fair. Current approval requirements for enterprise agreements are onerous, complex and unnecessarily prescriptive. We'll make changes to fix this.
Now, those in opposition want more time to consider this bill. But why should workers wait any longer? The former government had nine years to increase wages. They did nothing. Instead, they fuelled a two-speed economy that denies women who work in child care, in education, in disability, and others who work delivering food or in the digital economy, the ability to earn more. Listening to the opposition, I feel like I've stepped back in time, with them dredging up the old bogeyman union and scaremongering tactics. Australians and the world have moved on. They're looking for positive and constructive change, but it seems the opposition is stuck in the past. In contrast, our government is committed to fairness and integrity, tackling rampant wage theft, addressing workplace safety, promoting good workplace relations and enabling fair and just wages for women and men.
This legislation reflects the Albanese government's vision for a fairer, safer and more inclusive Australia. We stood for these things at the last election, and people across Australia voted in favour of them. While this legislation won't on its own fix every problem in our workplace relations system, it is an impressively strong start. I'm very proud of the Albanese Labor government, which is working to get wages moving after 10 years of neglect. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (11:31): Wages have represented a declining share of GDP since the 1970s. With current cost-of-living issues, it's really important that this changes so that improvements in productivity can be shared fairly between workers and business owners. This bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill, aims to get wages moving, and there are a lot of things to like in it, but some aspects of it raise serious concerns. The good parts include the better off overall test change, gender equity improvements and the focus on low-paid workers in the supported bargaining stream.
The changes to the better off overall test affirms its original intention, and confirms that the test is a global assessment rather than a line-by-line review and comparison of conditions. This is a welcome change which should make it easier for businesses and their employees to come to win-win agreements without reference to theoretical possibilities and arcane provisions.
The gender equity provisions of the bill are welcome. The inclusion of gender equity in the objects clause will put this issue clearly on the agenda. Changes to pay transparency will help make the gender pay gap more visible, and the inclusion of sexual harassment and discrimination issues in the Fair Work Commission will ensure that employees do not have to pursue justice in multiple jurisdictions. Improvements in work flexibility will ensure that women with competing responsibilities can find fair outcomes.
Wages in low-paid, often feminised, sectors need to increase, and, having worked in community services, I'm aware that a different approach is required when the funder is different to the employer, to ensure that government can fund increases in wages. I believe there's a case to be made for increasing access to collective bargaining options in the supported bargaining stream, although simplifying and lifting the awards would be preferable.
So there are good parts of this omnibus bill, but, given the very broad scope of changes made, I have serious concerns about some parts of it which ultimately will prevent me from supporting it unless it's split. Any changes should be guided by principles of fairness, simplicity, flexibility and productivity. I'm not convinced that these principles underpin the proposed changes.
I have four major concerns. My first concern is that I don't think it does anything to address the significant complexity in our industrial relations system. In fact, it may well make it worse. No doubt there are egregious breaches of award conditions, but there are also a lot of examples of awards being so complicated that employers, especially small businesses, inadvertently underpay staff or need to engage specialists to determine whether they're paying correctly, or both. Even large companies with significant human resources teams frequently find they've breached some unknown or complicated term of an award. Adding three separate additional streams of multi-employer bargaining on top of the award system, each with different processes and requirements, is likely to result in delays, uncertainty and a huge increase in the workload of the Fair Work Commission.
The complexity also raises the potential for the system to be gamed by employee representatives or IR professionals motivated by maintaining their relevance. In such a complex regulatory environment, the main winners are the specialists—lawyers, unions, and IR professionals—who'll have a steady stream of work ahead of them. Neither businesses nor workers benefit from complexity. This bill does nothing to simplify our modern award system. Efforts have been made in recent years to rationalise the number of awards, but each award is still ridiculously complicated. There's been no political impetus to tweak the industrial relations framework so it's more functional. We've seen over the years that ideological overhaul wins out over pragmatic iteration.
My second concern is about the potential for businesses to be dragged into the single-interest stream of multi-employer bargaining. The uncertainty of the common interest test raises the very real possibility of competing companies being brought under one bargain. Businesses in Curtin and across the country, especially small businesses, are worried about how this will affect them. Like so many other parts of our historically complex industrial relations system, this would have unintended consequences that go against the aim of the legislation. The government says the aim of this is to prevent a race to the bottom. But it may have the opposite effect and create the lowest-common-denominator approach to agreements, dampening productivity and wages.
It will require the Fair Work Commission to understand every business that comes before it and make an assessment of whether there is a common interest. The Fair Work Commission may consider geographic location, regulatory regime and the nature of enterprises in considering whether there's a common interest. This could result in multiple parts of a supply chain, all competitors, being forced to bargain together. Employers could also be dragged into pre-existing multi-employer bargains and, once in the system, it's challenging to get out of it. No doubt there are some businesses that would rather be part of a multi-employer bargain than have to navigate the awards and enterprise agreements system on their own. But this could easily be addressed through an opt-in approach, rather than a compulsory approach.
My third concern is that the proposed framework greatly increases reliance on the Fair Work Commission and embeds unions in the system, with approval of an employee representative required before an agreement can go to a vote for employees. Unions have played a very important part in protecting workers over the centuries, but undoubtedly have also played a part in our IR system being so complex. The Fair Work Commission is a quasi-judicial body, and its decisions can be unpredictable. This is driven by the lack of judicial training of members, the huge discretion given to the Fair Work Commission, which will increase significantly under this bill, and appointments coming from both ideological sides. More unpredictability is not what we need in our IR system.
My last concern is about the speed with which this has gone through this House. We do need to get wages moving, but, in such a notoriously complex area of law, it would make sense to be cautious. Changes made now are unlikely to be reviewed or amended for some time. Treating the bill as urgent and curtailing debate is only part of the problem. Unlike the Climate Change Bill, there was no exposure draft shared, and, unlike the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill, there has not been extensive consultation and discussion prior to the legislation being introduced. This makes it difficult for members of parliament and stakeholders alike to provide input to avoid unintended consequences. I've not had time to consult widely in my electorate on this matter. It takes time for businesses, especially small businesses, to understand what's proposed before forming a view. With further time and improvements to the bill, I may have come to the conclusion that this was the right move to get wages moving. But this can't be done thoroughly in two weeks, and the bill contains too much complexity for me to be comfortable with rushing it through. The government says that the intention is that single-employer bargains will remain the primary mechanism for wage setting. Only time will tell if this is the case.
I support the amendments by the member for Dickson to give the parliament three months to review these changes and to split the bill so that the significant matters covered can be addressed and debated separately rather than in an omnibus bill. I support the amendment proposed by the member for Wentworth calling for an inquiry into the more controversial parts of the bill. And I support the amendment proposed by the member for Mayo changing the definition of 'small business' from 15 to 100 employees.
The government has indicated that it will propose a number of amendments to the bill, which make some effort to take into account unintended consequences identified by a range of stakeholders in this short time frame. The scale and range of these amendments is an indication of the broad scope of issues being addressed and the complexity of the regulatory regime being introduced. Given the speed with which they have been drafted and the lack of consultation and testing of these amendments, I have concerns about potential further unintended consequences. I reiterate that I'm supportive of the intended goal of this bill—to get wages moving—in these difficult economic conditions. But its complexity and far-reaching consequences for business mean that I won't be supporting it in its current form.
Given that this bill is likely to pass through this House this week, I urge the Senate to do its best to improve or split the legislation, and I urge the government to consider a fulsome review in 12 months so that this does not end up creating more unforeseen consequences that land in the too-hard basket. Thank you.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Government Whip) (11:41): I rise to make my contribution on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This is the first industrial relations legislation in a long time that is designed with the express goal of improving the conditions of workers. It is an IR reform that is not aimed at undermining the pay and conditions of those who carried this country through the darkest moments of the pandemic or the workers who built one of the most successful economies in the world. IR reform should never cause the conditions of workers to slide backwards.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the severe problems that workers are coping with. Aged-care workers, childcare educators and other workers in the care economy struggled. But workers in all sectors were faced with the reality that the IR system was not fit for purpose and that it did not work in Australia's modern economy. There have been serious structural deficiencies in the industrial relations system over the past decade. The relationship between the unemployment rate and wages growth has been completely severed. If it had held up, wages growth would be skyrocketing off the back of the lowest unemployment rate since 1974. But ask any Australian and they will tell you that this is not happening. Workers will tell you that wages are not keeping up and that the work has become more insecure. And there is data to back this up.
More people are employed as casuals than ever before, and this is no longer just a transitional situation. The consequences of this were evident when workers could not afford to take off work when they fell sick. These workers had no choice. It was either go to work or not be able to feed their families. These are the consequences of insecure work. Movement between casual and permanent employment is lower than it was during the first decade of the last century. Instead, there is an increase in casuals moving to fixed-term employment. The bill will limit the use of fixed-term contracts beyond two years except in genuine and appropriate circumstances. Australians would be experiencing wages growth of almost four per cent if previous trends held true. Instead, Australians are seeing wage growth at nearly half that level. With inflation possibly peaking at eight per cent, according to the Reserve Bank, that is a real wage cut for workers. If wages won't rise when unemployment and underutilisation is low, when will they?
The purpose of the industrial relations bill is to deliver on both of our commitments at the election and the outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit. For the past 10 years the industrial relations system has been failing workers and failing to do what it was designed for. Half as many new arrangements were made in 2021 as were made in 2013-14. Enterprise bargaining agreements yield better pay and broader benefits for workers. Lifting rates of enterprise bargaining will get wages moving after a wasted decade under the coalition government. And do you know what? Workers who are paid properly will also increase their productivity, which is better for businesses all over the country.
A major component of the bill is the introduction of greater access to multi-employer bargaining arrangements, because of all the evidence of it boosting the conditions of workers. The idea that multi-employer bargaining will hamper productivity and cause widespread industrial disputes is unfounded, and it's certainly not supported by international evidence. In fact, most OECD countries use multi-employer bargaining, and they tend to have lower wage inequality and no more industrial disputes. The industries that will benefit most from multi-employer bargaining are those that tend to be younger, female dominated and lower skilled, but all workers have the right to better pay and conditions, and many sectors of our economy are disadvantaged by the current industrial relations system.
Organising and unionising is difficult for workers in the childhood education and the care and community service sectors, which are primarily composed of thousands of smaller workplaces. The Fair Work Commission will be allowed to authorise workers to bargain together, and it's only fair, given the power that some organisations have in such decentralised sectors. Importantly, some exemptions are made, and our government has ensured that small businesses cannot be forced into this stream of bargaining.
While multi-employer bargaining will help get wages moving, the institutions that uphold the rights of workers must themselves be strengthened. The government will strengthen the Fair Work Act to ensure better compliance and enforcement. We'll ensure the Fair Work Commission is adequately resourced so that it can help workers and businesses reach agreements during negotiations, and the government will ensure workers can reclaim unpaid entitlements, increasing the cap that can be recovered to $100,000. And remember, it's the workers' money in the first place.
Workers are entitled to a fair wage for their labour, and they are entitled to feel safe in their workplace. The bill will ensure that sexual harassment is explicitly prohibited in the Fair Work Act, as recommended by the Respect@Work report. Sexual harassment is never acceptable. While there has been a cultural shift over the years, the statistics on workplace sexual harassment are way too high. The Respect@Work report found that one in three Australians has experienced sexual harassment in the last five years. This has increased since 2012, when the number was one in five, and that is just unacceptable. Systems that are in place are often complex and difficult to navigate, meaning that only 17 per cent of workers report the harassment. The legislation will create a new dispute resolution mechanism within the Fair Work Commission to ensure that all workers have access to better reporting mechanisms.
The government is also committed to closing the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap now stands at 14.1 per cent, an increase of 0.3 per cent, and there has been nothing done over the last nine years to help it close. The primary reason for the pay gap centres around the lack of flexibility, inadequate sharing of caring responsibilities, female dominated industries being underpaid, and the pay disparities between men and women in the same industry and with the same job—something that I have seen work in practice. Governments have an important role in play, and this bill will implement several measures to improve gender equality in the workplace. A simple but vital measure is banning pay secrecy clauses, which always are in the man's favour. Workers must be allowed to talk about their pay, because this ensures transparency and the accountability of slack bosses. These clauses have been largely used to hide gender pay disparity, and this is a symptomatic issue. Not only are individual women in workplaces paid less on average than men, but entire sectors that are female dominated tend to be lower paid and subject to more insecure work. It is amazing that this is the case.
The Fair Work Act will make gender equality a key objective of the commission and will establish a panel on pay equity and a panel on the care and community sector, because the female dominated sectors tend to be those in the care economy. While we all appreciate those in the care sectors and we love to thank them for their amazing work, I really think they need more than that. They deserve to be adequately compensated for the work that they do for all of us. That is why these two new panels are so important in ensuring the Fair Work Commission can deliver on its gender equity objective. Additionally, we'll put in place a statutory equal remuneration principle. This will make it easier for the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for workers in low-paid and female dominated industries.
Industrial relations reform is not an easy task. This bill is a significant first step for the workers of this country. It's the first tranche of the government's industrial relations reforms, and it is the step towards the necessary reforms that our economy and our workers have been desperate for. With one in four Australians struggling to get by, the workers of this country need wages to move again. They can't wait any longer, and these tough economic times show us the consequences of a decade of stagnant growth. We will get wages moving again. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (11:50): Governments do not create jobs; business and employers do. This is a message for those opposite. This bill delivers the worst possible news that Australian small and medium enterprises could get, on top of the mess this government is making with the Australian economy.
Thanks to this government, power prices are not being cut by $275 as promised. No, they're going up by 56 per cent. Gas prices are forecast to go up by 44 per cent. Prices are completely out of control. Inflation is at 7.3 per cent, projected to go up to eight per cent later this year. Property prices—what are they doing? They're going down. And staff shortages are at a crisis point across many sectors. What does this Labor government do, and what do their union masters do, when the economy is facing these challenges? I ask the Australian people that question. The Labor government legislate to make a bad situation worse. That's right.
What's the very first step they take? What they do first is abolish the cop on the beat that would keep unions in check, so their path is clear for unions to interfere in private enterprise—with the sole purpose of collecting union fees. Unions, since 2007, have donated over $100 million to the Australian Labor Party, and it's now time for them to pay it back—with interest. So Labor abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, which the EY report from April this year said could lead to a total economic loss of around $47.5 billion by 2030.
Further, the Albanese Labor government's abolition of the ABCC will save Australia's most militant union, the CFMMEU, construction division, millions of dollars in civilian penalties and legal expenses in the coming years. We can expect jobs to be lost. This militant union is to run riot, causing building costs to skyrocket, and large and small businesses alike to fold. Labor, at a time of multiple challenges across our economy, want to send businesses broke and cause employees and their families to lose their income.
Reintroducing industry-wide bargaining like we saw in the 1970s will cause widespread strike action, including potential sympathy strikes by other sectors and industries. Nobody wishes to stand in the way of higher wages, but there is just no evidence that this legislation will deliver wage increases. In fact, this bill will hold up wage rises because it increases complexity and delays. It will force up prices and increase the cost of living. It will undermine competition so Australians have fewer choices but face higher costs. It unfairly targets small businesses, because these changes will be complicated and expensive, and mum-and-dad businesses don't have HR departments that can wade through these complex changes. And it will open the front door for unions into small businesses that have never had to deal with them before.
There are over 32,000 small businesses in my electorate of Moncrieff, on the central Gold Coast, and over 60,000 small businesses on the Gold Coast who will suffer under this bill, and there will be compulsory bargaining for SMEs. They're not happy. My small businesses, my chambers of commerce, are not happy about this bill. It's small and family business that holds up the Gold Coast economy—a tourism sector, a hospitality sector—and they'll be badly impacted by this bill and this Labor government. No-one—absolutely no-one—from the Labor Party is looking after the Gold Coast or Gold Coasters and their families. Those on the other side just don't get business. You just don't understand how to run a business and the costs associated with that. Gold Coasters know that the Labor Party and the unions do not have their interests at heart. They know what the coalition has delivered to our region. They believe in reward for effort and running their own business without union interference.
The head of the CFMMEU, John Setka himself, said, 'This legislation gives us the ability to go after non-unionised workplaces.' Who are non-unionised workplaces? Do those opposite even know who they are? They are your local coffee shop, your local restaurant, your local chemist, your local surf shop—on the Gold Coast, your neighbour's business and the list goes on. They'll all suffer, as will their employees, when they can no longer make ends meet to pay their bills and are forced to make drastic changes—under this bill—or, sadly, close their doors altogether.
Earlier this year, this union and its South Australian secretary were fined $27,000 for staging an intimidating and illegal protest on a construction site at East Terrace in Adelaide. During that protest, they chanted 'grubby grub grub' in the face of a female lawyer and yelled at a female employee to get off site. There are currently 30 CFMMEU representatives before the courts. Since 2016, the CFMMEU has been fined more than $15 million. John Setka has actually been convicted of harassing his estranged wife, breaching court orders, and, more recently, she's claimed that she is living in fear of him. My point is that under the Albanese government, union groups such as the CFMMEU will have more power to do as they please in Australian businesses and workplaces, including small, medium and large businesses.
Those businesses across Australia have deep reservations that the expansion of multi-employer bargaining risks jeopardising the important focus on encouraging employers and employees to reach agreements at the enterprise level. Enterprise bargaining should be the cornerstone of our workplace relations system, if we're to grow pay packets, improve job security and boost productivity—not a union armed with the right of veto over any agreement made between the employer and the employee. The union will have the right to veto any agreement made between the employer and the employee.
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms BELL: Those opposite don't like it when I point out the truth of this bill. This erodes the choices of entrepreneurs. It erodes the very foundation of the core values of having a go, of building something from nothing, and of keeping more of what you have earned in order to invest in yourself, your community, and, most of all, in your business.
This is the entrepreneurial spirit of the Gold Coast at stake here, which this Labor government is planning to dismantle right now. The chambers of commerce and the manufacturing sector in my electorate do not support this bill, and neither do hardworking business owners, who will be forced into doing as they are told by unions and fair work. The ACCI chief executive, Andrew McKellar, has warned that compulsory multi-employer bargaining is a seismic shift to Australia's workplace relations system, reversing decades of tripartite consensus, and it would result in more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust within our enterprises. He says:
Enterprise bargaining is the cornerstone of our workplace relations system, and any significant change requires an extended period of robust and transparent public consultation.
Yet this government is in such a hurry to ram this through the parliament they have not even conducted proper consultation, except with their union bosses. And they haven't conducted any modelling on the effects, and nor do they understand the consequences of these seismic changes to the everyday lives of working Australians.
The Business Council of Australia chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, who we all know and have heard from, said:
We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment.
Australia is in the midst of a global economic storm and there's no room for error if we want to secure our economic future; we have to tread carefully.
That's the message from the Business Council of Australia. But those opposite are not treading carefully. No. They are ramming through these changes, without amendment or due consideration, for the biggest IR changes since WorkChoices. That's the message from the Business Council of Australia. But those opposite are not treading carefully. No! They're ramming through these changes without amendment or due consideration for the biggest IR changes since Work Choices.
Consider this scenario: there is a family with a printing business on the Gold Coast. There are plenty of them. There are three generations of family. They employ 40 locals and they support their local community through fundraising activities and through sponsorships. An employee goes to the boss and asks for more flexible working hours and for some time working at home. Some staff are always sick and the business is already understaffed due to shortages, as we know, so the boss has to say: 'Look, I'm really sorry. I need you here to serve customers and to supervise the deliveries. You can't do that from home, and I can't change our opening hours. So I need to have you here, please.' The employee says that's not fair and makes a complaint to the Fair Work Commission. As a result, the way you manage your rosters, your staff and perhaps even your opening hours is now subject to the arbitration of the Fair Work Commission. You are no longer the boss. You have been manipulated by this bill through the unions, who are now the CEO of your family business, and the Fair Work Commission, which is your new general manager. (Time expired)
Ms WELLS (Lilley—Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport) (12:01): Australians are struggling with the rising cost of living which is why we made an election promise to Australians that the Albanese Labor government would get wages moving, and that is exactly what we have worked to do since being elected. In June, our government accepted the Fair Work Commission's decision, following the national wage review, and gave Australians a 5.2 per cent increase to the national minimum wage. That meant $40 going directly in people's pockets. That is the difference a Labor government makes.
Last week the commission awarded a 15 per cent interim pay rise for some aged-care workers—a decision which the Albanese Government will fund. This pay rise is vitally important. It will help us recruit and retain the staff needed to reform a sector that was dreadfully neglected for nine years. But I also know that the Fair Work Commission's interim decision is a bittersweet one for some aged-care workers because it did not include our vital lifestyle, cleaning, laundry and catering workers, who are all essential to delivering the quality of care needed. I say to these workers: I understand your disappointment and frustration that the Fair Work Commission has not yet made a decision on your wages. Please know that our fight for you is not over. The Fair Work Commission will continue to consider a pay rise for these workers in addition to further increases for aged-care workers in direct care roles on the aged-care award, the nurses award and the SCHCADS award. In the meantime, I see you, I hear you and the Albanese government values your essential work.
We know that these are hard times for Australians and their families and that workers' wages are not keeping up with prices. Insecure work and nine years of low wages have shifted the nature of Australia's workforce, creating the perfect storm for workers. Rampant job insecurity makes it hard for workers to plan for their future. We as a government understand that we must intervene to improve job security and increase wages growth. That is exactly what this bill will do. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill will make job security an objective of the Fair Work Act. It will give access to bargaining and close the loopholes that continue to undermine wage growth. To get wages moving, particularly for women and lower paid workers, we need to reduce the barriers to bargaining. We know the current system is broken. Australian workers and their families know the system is broken, and they know it is not working for them. This is about secure jobs, so that, at the end of the day, at the end of a long shift, workers can go home to their families without worrying about how they will pay their bills week to week, so that they have better pay that will ensure they can continue to put food on the table and put money into the local economies of the communities that we all love to represent.
We are doing this because it is the right thing to do. We want to ensure Australian workers and their families can live life to the fullest without the added stress and pressures that come with insecure work. We know that, under the former government, wages were deliberately kept low and insecure work was encouraged. While doorknocking in suburbs like Boondall, Deagon and Zillmere, I have spoken to countless northsiders who have told me they wanted more secure jobs and stronger wages. Many were voting for Labor for the very first time because they believed in our jobs plan—a plan for a better future. They put their faith in us to do this for them, and I am proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, honouring that faith and delivering on that promise. Labor is taking action.
Workers can't afford to wait any longer for fairer wages. This is why, since this bill has been extensively consulted upon since we were elected, business, unions and Australian workers all agree that the current bargaining system is broken. So, we are fixing it, and we are working to ensure that workers get a better deal. The passage of this bill will ensure that workers can get ahead, that workers are getting a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Our Labor government is continuously working to bring gender equity to the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making. The secure jobs, better pay bill is designed to ensure that all workers in female dominated professions—professions that essential, like aged care, disability support, health care and early childhood education—get the pay rises and the support that they deserve.
We know that this legislation will not only help to close the 14.1 per cent gender pay gap but also protect women at work. It will boost the commission's gender pay gap expertise. It will ban the pay secrecy clauses. And it will explicitly prohibit sexual harassment, in the Fair Work Act. This was a key recommendation of the Respect@Work report. As part of the Fair Work Commission's interim decision to implement a 15 per cent wage rise for direct care workers, the full bench accepted that the valuation of this important work is influenced by societal expectations and gendered assumptions about the role of women as workers.
More than 85 per cent of aged-care workers are female and, until now, could earn more stocking shelves in supermarkets—an utterly unfair situation. The Albanese Labor government cares about closing the gender pay gap. There is a historic undervaluation of work done in female dominated occupations, and it's past time that this changed. The Fair Work Commission decision and this bill is another step towards that change. Our government cares about closing the gender pay gap, and we will get wages moving, particularly for women, by modernising Australia's workplace relations laws. After nearly nine years of neglect by successive coalition governments, who have overseen understaffing, low pay and insecure work for the female workforce, the Albanese Labor government is the one improving outcomes in female dominated workplaces and industries.
My husband, Finn, and I juggle three young children, Celeste, Ossi and Dash. Finn is an incredibly supportive partner when it comes to caring for our children, but we understand how important it is for parents and women to have access to flexible work arrangements—it is essential—and that access is at the heart of ensuring that we can encourage more women, more carers and more young parents to come back to or enter our workforce. This bill will encourage workforce participation at a time when every sector out there is facing workforce shortages. It is no secret that we want more teachers in schools. It is no secret that we want more workers in aged care. We want more early childhood educators. We want more people in the country to join the workforce or to come back to it. But, to encourage them, we must show that we value them, that we care for them and we need to see them have a fair pay for a fair day's work, better working conditions and a secure job.
That is exactly what this bill will do. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill will help workers and Australian families to get ahead. This bill is essential. This bill is urgent. This bill will help deliver a better future for all Australians.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:09): For many years the Greens have been crystal clear that the industrial relations system in this country is broken. It is too hard for people to organise, it is too hard for people to get a pay rise, and it has worked especially badly for women and for the low paid. After decades of stripping back awards and making it harder for people to organise, we have seen wages go backwards in real terms, and people are now suffering, especially when you combine that with massively high inflation. A big part of that is problems with the Fair Work Act.
We also have been saying very, very clearly for many years now that we have a work and care crisis in this country. It is too hard for too many workers and especially women—not only women, but the burden of caring especially falls on women—to balance their work and care responsibilities. People are being pulled at a number of ends. It's not just people having to look after their children; it is also many people being sandwiched in the generation where they're looking after their children and their parents as well. The pressures that are being brought to bear on work and care are reaching crisis point for many people in this country. That's why, going back a decade, the first bill to give people an enforceable right to flexible working arrangements was introduced by me into this House in 2012. It was designed to give people an enforceable right to flexible working arrangements. At that stage it wasn't supported by Labor or the coalition. The first bill to ban pay secrecy clauses, which we know contribute to the gender pay gap, was introduced by Senator Waters back in 2015. At that point it was not supported by either Labor or Liberal.
On this question of ensuring that people have proper enforceable rights to have better pay arrangements and that we close the gender pay gap, the Greens have been leading. The Greens have been leading for years in this place, bringing legislation to this parliament that would have an effect. We've also been crystal clear for many, many years that we need to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is a blight on the rule of law in this country that, if you happen to work in a particular industry—in this instance, the construction sector—you have fewer rights than someone who works somewhere in a different sector. This includes that you can get brought in front of what is effectively a secret police force and you be denied your right to silence and forced to answer questions in a way that other workers just don't have.
For years we have been pushing in this place to restore the rule of law by getting rid of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and we haven't always been supported by others. But we have been consistent in fighting for women, fighting for rights for carers and fighting to ensure that people across this country have their rights protected. We took that to the election and we've also made it clear to the government that we want to see action on those areas and that we would support action on those areas. When the government brought its bill to this place, we were pleased to see a number of the things the Greens have been fighting for for years included in this bill, although we had some concerns about a number of elements of the bill because we think they didn't do what we thought the government was trying to do with them. One area is fixed term contracts, for example. Again, we'd brought legislation to this place to address the scourge of fixed term contracts and the rise of insecure work before anyone else did. It was opposed by Labor and Liberal, when the Greens brought legislation to this place to tackle the scourge of fixed term contracts in higher education and in the aged-care sector.
We raised these issues with the government and we see that a number of those matters have been addressed in the amendments that have been circulated. On the basis that a number of the issues the Greens have been raising for some time being included in this bill and also the fact that a number of the issues we raised with respect to the original drafting being addressed, the Greens will support this bill and the amendments in this House. They will make a big difference to a number of workers right across the country, so we'll be voting in favour of the bill and the amendments when it comes to a vote, which I understand will be tomorrow. There are still some outstanding issues, and we know that the bill will go to the Senate after it's passed here. In the Senate the government is obviously going to need the support of the Greens to get this legislation through and is going to need the support of others in the Senate as well.
There are issues that we continue to have with the bill where we can see the potential that people could go backwards. I don't think that's the government's intention, but having practised in this area of law for over a decade we know where the traps lie in bills like this. We will be continuing to have good faith discussions with the government about those areas as the bill comes before the Senate. Of course, it will ultimately be up to the government as to what form the legislation reaches the Senate in. We thank the minister for having those discussions with us in good faith. We will continue on that basis as the legislation reaches the Senate. We hope that those issues can be resolved by the time that it gets to the Senate.
I also want to commend and place on the record here the work of Senator Barbara Pocock from the Greens, our employment spokesperson. Before she came to this place, she was Australia's foremost academic in the field of work and care. She knows, I suspect better than anyone else, the depth of the work and care crisis that exists in this country and the solutions that are needed. In the short time that she's been here she's not only managed to get a Senate Select Committee on Work and Care established but that committee has issued an interim report that had Labor-Greens majority recommendations that said clearly we need to start taking action to address this work and care crisis. I commend her for that work and bringing her expertise to the Senate, and getting a majority of the Senate on board. It shows that in this parliament now—the parliament that the people voted for at the last election—there is a real prospect, if we choose to take and seize this opportunity, of addressing some of the big issues that have been affecting women and that have been leading to a work and care crisis in this country. If we do that we will go a long way to addressing 10 years of seeing wages go backwards, the growing pressure and a crisis that means that people can't live their lives with their families, with their friends—live the kind of full life that they want.
Basically, deregulation has got out of control in this country, and that includes in the work sector. As a result people are left with next to no ability to exercise real control over their working arrangements. That means being able to balance your responsibilities at home, your responsibilities that you might have to people who you are caring for, your responsibilities you might have to your parents who getting old and need looking after with your right to continue working. For too long that burden has been pushed down on individual people. People have been feeling the crunch for too long. If we can get some reforms through this parliament where the government does not have a majority in both houses of parliament and is going to need to work with others to get things through, if we can get reform on that during in the course of this parliament, then I suspect the Australian people—especially women across this country who bear the burden of caring responsibilities—are going to thank us for it. We're up for seizing that opportunity. We will keep pushing to ensure that people have more control over their work and care arrangements.
Dr ANANDA-RAJAH (Higgins) (12:19): Australians are hard-working and patient. They have contributed to over a decade of healthy company profits and shareholder value, but precious little of that value has been returned to their own pay packets. Reciprocity has broken down. This is the social compact between workers and their employers. Australian workers are now running out of patience and time. They are in that pincer grip of rising cost-of-living pressures and stagnant wages. In fact, that pincer grip has turned into a stranglehold. It is disproportionately affecting our lower-paid workers, particularly those in our feminised industries—childcare workers, healthcare workers, aged-care workers, cleaners and workers in the disability and community sector. Not coincidently, these sectors have also seen an exodus of workers during the pandemic. If things were bad before the pandemic, they are now much worse. The pandemic effectively acted like a threat-multiplier—much like climate change will. It blew off those weaknesses and exposed fault lines. Those fault lines were then rent further apart so that they are now wide, and this has led to growing inequality in our society.
Although we have near record low unemployment, at 3.25 per cent, it hides a dirty secret—moribund wages growth that has not kept up. It has averaged 2.2 per cent every year over the last 10 years. We have a tight labour market, but we are not seeing a growth in wages—why? Because the pipeline of job security is leaky—it is vulnerable to exploitation, secret pay clauses that affect women, neutered bargaining power and insurmountable power dynamics. There is no contest between a cleaner and a CEO.
While wages have tanked, what has burgeoned is a growing underclass—effectively, a working poor. That's what we have in Australia—a working poor. There's a term for this that I discovered only during the election. They're called a precariat. They live on the edge of precariousness. There are about four million of these workers who are in insecure work, and they have many faces. They're in the gig economy, in labour hire, in part-time work, or on rolling fixed-term contracts. Let's meet a couple of them. One is Lucy, a woman I met in my electorate of Higgins. She lives in Malvern. She's in her 60s, a nurse educator, and she has been on a rolling fixed-term contract for 10 years. Over that time, she has done pretty well—she has managed to buy a lovely house with a beautiful garden. She has a cat. She has had a really good quality of life. Then the pandemic came, and her hours were cut. Do you know what happened? She started falling behind on her mortgage repayments. When I met her, she was on the edge of losing her home, and she's two years off retirement. That is the human consequence of a decade of wage suppression.
Then there's Maia, a colleague of mine, someone I met when I was working on the COVID wards at the Alfred Hospital during the omicron wave in January. Maia is a cleaner. I met her in the change room when we were taking off our scrubs. There she was, removing a top which was saturated with perspiration. The only part I could see that was dry was a tiny little hem at the bottom of her scrubs. I looked at her and said, 'Are you okay?' She said, 'Michelle, it's my third change of the day.' It was about one o'clock in the afternoon. I was on an enterprise bargaining agreement, and I was getting paid well for what I was doing, but I'm not so sure about Maia. She's a cleaner. What about all the other people that keep hospitals go going—porters, security guards, the people who turn up when there is a code grey for occupational violence and aggression, the people who sterilise the instruments in the bowels of the hospitals, and the people who clean up the laundry? They are almost certainly not on EBAs in the same way that I was.
What we are currently seeing, with an exodus of low-paid workers from mission-critical industries like health care, aged care and early childhood education, is a product of misplaced priorities. Low wages were a deliberate design feature from those opposite for over a decade. To me this is something much more sinister—it is a violation of the social contract between people and their leaders. When you come into this House it is such a privilege, and your job is actually to govern for everyone, for the whole country, not just for a thin slice of a sector—your favourites. You don't come in here to govern for your favourites, you govern for everyone. The complete distortion of this value is what we're now reaping from the last 10 years.
The secure work, better pay bill actually seeks to restore reward for effort and it tries to even up the field, particularly between men and women. We've heard much about the gender pay gap sitting at 14.1 per cent, and that's probably an underestimate. It's been stubbornly resistant to change—stubbornly resistant. Everyone in this House has been bemoaning the fact that this is a terrible thing and that we need to do more about it. We don't need pious proclamations: what we actually need is structural reform to close this gap, and this is what this bill introduces.
It zeros in on gender equity; it zeros in on it and makes it a key objective of the Fair Work Act. It means that the Fair Work Commission will now have to apply a gender lens to everything it does. The Fair Work Commission will be backed up by two expert panels, one focused on pay equity and the other focused on the care and community sector, which is disproportionately feminised. We will also outlaw pay secrecy, removing that cloak of secrecy which hides a dirty secret: that women are paid less than men for similar types of work. Casting sunlight over the organisational structure will help make amends.
We will also help to stamp out sexual harassment by making it easier to make claims to the Fair Work Commission rather than having to go through the courts. We will limit the use of these rolling fixed-term contracts—the same contract that was hobbling Lucy in my electorate—and we will expand access to flexible working arrangements. That's so Maia, the cleaner in my hospital, can turn up to work at 7 am knowing that she has someone to look after her children, or that maybe she can defer her work to a little later because her childcare centre hasn't opened yet.
We will increase access to bargaining. People on EBAs, like myself in my former life, earn more money than people who are on award wages. In fact, on average, $600 a week more. But only 15 per cent of workers are covered by EBAs. There is a strong emphasis throughout this bill on bargaining and arbitration. But what I've heard over the last few hours and days is that a scare campaign is being waged around strikes, or an onerous imposition on small business, or that it's overly complex legislation that we need more time on. Australians have already waited for 10 years to get to this point: how much more time do you need? The writing is on the wall!
Then, of course, there have been complaints about a lack of consultation. Really? We've had five months of continuous consultation with peak business groups, with some of the largest employers in our country, with unions, with women's groups, with academic experts and with state and territory ministers. And we've also had a long process of public consultation. We need to end the race to the bottom and to end the sort of mentality that, when it comes to wages, for too long workers have been seen as a problem to be managed rather than the social and economic benefit that they are. Our government ushered in an increase to the minimum wage and a wage rise for aged-care workers, but leaving that to elections is fraught. There must be a better way, and there is. Reforming the system is what this bill will deliver, so that we end up, as I said in my maiden speech, with healthy, happy workers who make the economy hum. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (12:28): I thank the House. In May, the Australian people voted for secure jobs and better pay. Now the Australian parliament can vote for secure jobs and better pay through this Fair Work Legislation (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. After a decade of insecure work, undermining confidence and undercutting living standards, Australians voted to make job security an objective of the Fair Work Act. After a decade in which in this nation fell to 70th in the world for women's economic participation and the gender pay gap actually grew, Australians voted to boost gender pay equity, including the creation of expert panels for the community and care sector, and writing gender pay equity into the Fair Work Act. And after a decade of wage suppression, a decade of low wages being deployed as a deliberate design feature, the Australian people voted for our plans to get wages moving again. The Australian people voted for these reforms. Now the Australian parliament can do the same.
This bill reflects the mandate that Labor won on 21 May. It also demonstrates the priority we have put on consultation and cooperation since then—in particular, the Jobs and Skills Summit, when we brought together industry groups, small business, union representatives and civil society. Those leaders, representing a cross-section of the economy, agreed on the importance of investing in cheaper child care, which we delivered in our budget. They agreed on the need to expand paid parental leave, which we delivered in our budget. They agreed on the importance of building more affordable housing, which we delivered in our budget.
Big business, small business, unions and economists all agree that the current enterprise bargaining system is simply not working. It's not working for business and it's not working for workers and, therefore, it's not working for our economy. Across the economy, employers and employees are voting with their feet. Enterprise agreement take-up is at a 30-year low. It's a one-size-fits-all system that is no longer fit for purpose. It's not attune to the way we work in Australia in 2022, it's not relevant or useful for small businesses and their staff, it's not delivering the productivity gains employers need and it's not delivering the wage rises that workers deserve.
The current system is failing women worst of all, because it is those workforces with the most women that currently have the least bargaining power and the lowest pay. Disability care workers, cleaners, early educators, healthcare workers, the carers who keep the promise of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the people who educate our youngest Australians, nurses who stand on the frontline of our health system—heroes of the pandemic but, more than that, heroes every single day. These Australians deserve more than our thanks. They deserve better support, better conditions and better pay.
I will always be proud that one of the first things our government did on coming to office was secure a substantial increase in the minimum wage. I am delighted that, last Friday, the Fair Work Commission granted a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers. Do we on this side of the House welcome this progress? I say, 'Absolutely!' But on this side of the House we understand. As the Fair Work Commission acknowledged on Friday, 'Work in feminised industries, including care work, has been historically undervalued,' and the fastest and most effective way to address this failure is to make it easier for the workers in these industries to advocate together for better outcomes. Our reforms will make it easier for small businesses to engage with the bargaining framework, to get the support and resources they need to reach a fair deal for their staff, without being buried in paperwork or starting from scratch each time. I want to thank COSBOA for their constructive contribution to this dialogue and reform.
This bill also makes commonsense changes to improve the better off overall test, removing red tape relating to the approval of enterprise agreements whilst still protecting workers. So instead of weighing every hypothetical scenario under which a new agreement might adversely affect a hypothetical employee, the commission will now be able to base its decision on realistic scenarios, giving particular weight to the views of the bargaining representatives as to whether the agreement passes the BOOT. This is about encouraging give and take, supporting businesses and unions, negotiating in good faith for win-win outcomes.
This bill enshrines gender pay equity as an objective of the Fair Work Act, and it creates expert panels for the community and care sector—two policies I put at the centre of my campaign launch in Perth, because economic equality for women is at the centre of our government's vision for a better future. This bill abolishes pay secrecy clauses, which far too often act as a barrier to employees, particularly women, being paid the salary that they deserve. Importantly, this bill also reinforces the right of every Australian to a safe and respectful workplace. In line with recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, we're creating a positive duty to prevent sexual harassment, as well as providing affordable and accessible processes for employees to obtain orders from the Fair Work Commission to help protect them from harassment.
Along with these measures, we're banning employers from advertising jobs for rates of pay below the legal award minimum. Imagine the fact that that's okay at the moment—just extraordinary. We're consigning the last of the Work Choices agreements and all the unfairness they contain to the dustbin of history, where they belong. We're abolishing the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission, as we committed to do—two ideological failures that did nothing to boost productivity or improve workplace safety.
I freely acknowledge that not everyone is 100 per cent happy with 100 per cent of this legislation. I understand that there are both business representatives and union representatives who feel that this legislation isn't exactly what they would want. To me, that says we've got the balance right. I've said all along that I'm focused on bringing people together to find solutions. That doesn't mean I expect everyone to agree on every single aspect of every single proposal. If you wait for that, nothing will change. But Australians voted for change. What we are seeking is consensus on a common goal, an economy with strong growth, high productivity and fair wages. The reforms at the heart of this legislation are about building a framework for employers and employees to negotiate in good faith in pursuit of this goal, to agree on those win-win outcomes that deliver better conditions for workers and better results for business. We're giving small business the chance to be a part of those conversations, too. It will be a level playing field for everyone and a strong independent umpire in the Fair Work Commission.
This bill represents an opportunity for Australia to move beyond a system that's not serving the best interests of anyone and embrace one that serves the common interests of all. The bill will help Australia to climb the ladder for women's economic equality. This bill represents an opportunity for this parliament to match its words with actions. It's easy to say that you support higher wages as a theoretical proposition. The test is, what are you prepared to do? This legislation shows what we're prepared to do as a government. We believe that after a decade of wage stagnation working Australians deserve better than more of the same. They deserve action. They deserve meaningful progress. They deserve secure jobs and better pay. The government's position is clear, and so is our mandate, and I urge the parliament to back these reforms, to boost job security, to improve workplace safety and to get wages moving again. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BIRRELL (Nicholls—Deputy Nationals Whip) (12:38): Let's wind the clock back, because that's what this legislation is attempting to do. It's winding us back to the dark ages of industrial thuggery in Australia. Going back to 1986, I was only 11. The Australian Bureau of Statistics—these are facts—recorded a total of 1,892 strikes across the country, involving more than half a million workers. Those strikes amounted to over a million working days lost. Businesses, including many small to medium businesses that could ill afford it, had to wear the cost of that low and lost productivity. In the year to June 2022 there were 52 disputes. That's 97 per cent less disruption than there was in the bad old days.
The industrial relations system isn't broken, but those opposite want to fix it, and by 'fix it' I mean change it to benefit their union mates. There's been plenty of talk from the other side about low-paid and insecure workers, but it's a smokescreen. If Labor really cared about lifting up low-paid and insecure workers, it would split the bill and get those elements passed. Instead, it has become the feel-good mantra the other side can keep spouting to avoid talking about the reality of the rest of this damaging and dangerous bill. These reforms will put unions back at the centre of industrial relations, remove choices for employers and workers, and we will be on a downward spiral of escalating disputes, strikes, loss of productivity—very important work productivity—and competitiveness.
In pursuing this payback to the unions, those opposite are also willing to trash the Hawke-Keating legacy. Even before the Hawke government was elected in 1983, they had struck a chord. Unions, who, from the 1970s, had used their power to push for ever higher over-award wage increases, were brought to heel. Industrial strikes, surging real wages, high inflation and a low-growth economy had to be addressed. The Prices and Incomes Accord saw unions agree to control wage demands to help get inflation under control. The Hawke government would compensate workers through a series of measures including tax relief and a compulsory retirement savings scheme. Workers would also benefit from a stronger economy and economic reforms to open Australia to competition and improve productivity. The accord lasted, in various iterations, until the mid-1990s.
In May 1986, Treasurer Paul Keating made his infamous banana republic reference. Keating told 2UE Sydney broadcaster John Laws on 14 May 1986:
If this government cannot get the adjustment, get manufacturing going again, and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy, then Australia is basically done for. We will end up being a third-rate economy ... a banana republic.
Keating was sounding the alarm bell, warning that things would get tougher unless reforms continued. Tariff cuts, deregulations and a shift away from centralised wage fixing were key elements, and by the late 1980s it was generally accepted that a more flexible and more productive economy would raise and maintain living standards for all. Accord Mark III, which came into effect in 1987, set out a minimum safety net for workers pay and conditions and allowed unions to negotiate at the enterprise level for higher wages tied to increased productivity. It is a principle that has remained at the core of wages policy ever since, and now it has been trashed.
Labor have made it clear they want to hand over all workplaces to the unions, including small and family businesses. Industry-wide bargaining will be devastating for the Australian economy, leading to widespread strike action. Labor promised higher wages but then delivered a first budget that didn't address wage growth. They don't have the stomach for the economic reforms required.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr BIRRELL: Those opposite may be interested in this: the Hawke-Keating era is notable because it demonstrated that governments are most effective when they are prepared to take on elements of their own constituency. This government is instead handing over the reins to the unions. It is capitulating. It is abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a recipe for chaos and costly delays in the building sector. It is expanding multi-employer bargaining, including the single interest stream, by allowing Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interests to bargain together where it is in the public interest for them to do so. The common interest definition is so broad as to be laughable: their commonality could just be trading in the same shopping centre.
Business groups are united in their condemnation of this aspect of the legislation. Those opposite are gifting unions the power to compel employers to bargain together if the move has the support of the majority of employees. This is backed by the right to strike. Small businesses could be coerced into bargaining based on some vague common interest, which is fundamentally unfair. In time, these multi-employer agreements will be the new form of a centralised wage fixing system, where the wage will be fixed by a union or the commission. We are going back to the bad old days. By retaining the ability of employees to take industrial action at the same time as allowing a broader range of employees to be compelled to bargain together, the bill significantly increases the risk of multisector industrial action, and strikes will be the norm rather than the exception.
Understandably, businesses, including businesses in my electorate, are worried about a future that can force them to negotiate with the unions and enter arbitration, rather than dealing directly with their own workers.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chief Executive, Andrew McKellar, has warned that compulsory multi-employer bargaining is 'a seismic shift to Australia's workplace relations system, reversing decades of tripartite consensus that would result in more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust within our enterprises.' Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group said:
The legislation is fundamentally flawed and needs to be rethought and reworked. Given its implications for our economy, employers and workers …
Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Jennifer Westacott said, 'We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment.'
We all want wages to go up, but this is not necessary reform to encourage proportionate and productive growth in wages. It is reform aimed at restoring the relevance of unions and ceding to them the power to return to the bullyboy tactics of the past. It's a recipe for chaos and disruption. For the businesses in my electorate, there will be no dividend. They will face higher costs, lower productivity and an increased threat of industrial disputes. It will require small business owners with more than 14 employees to spend a significant amount of time away from their work, negotiating a joint bargaining position with other employees and then negotiating with unions and their employees. The bargaining process will be a multi-employer agreement that will inevitably lead to clauses that are not relevant to the requirements of the business and will cause operational difficulties.
Here's just one example: disputes over flexible work arrangement requests will be dealt with by the Fair Work Commission, which can move them to arbitration. A single employee can go to the commission, and it can decide on the flexible work request, which is unprecedented in Australian workplace relations history. It effectively takes away the employer's right to manage their business. This so-called plan for higher wages will threaten the viability of businesses and cost jobs, and you can't earn higher wages if you don't have a job because the person running the business has gone out of business.
The Productivity Commission has warned that any changes to the Fair Work Act to increase the use of multi-employer and industry sector-wide bargaining are likely to have uncertain implications for productivity and should be undertaken with caution and subject to detailed, rigorous and transparent analysis. That's not what we are getting as both houses of parliament move through looking at this bill. The crossbench have made that very point. The changes that Labor now proposes to make enterprise agreements easier and sunset zombie agreements could have been passed 18 months ago, but Labor opposed them. Rather than agreements locking in terms for the life of the agreement that might be developed by businesses and employees, terms can be subject to continuous challenge or scrutiny if there is a prospect of employees being worse off under the agreement when compared to the modern award, so it will lead to more confusion and more uncertainty for businesses that employ people and pay wages.
If this government wants to help workers and raise their standard of living, it should be tackling the cost-of-living crisis and not adding to inflationary pressures. It should be tackling affordable energy, but instead this government is driving up gas and electricity prices with flawed policy. This is a bad bill. It's bad policy and I cannot support it.
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (12:48): I'm very happy to contribute to this debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill. I thank the previous speakers, both on this side and that side of the House, as well as the members of the crossbench who raised some interesting concerns around how this legislation has been brought into the national conversation. Such is the impact of this legislation, so profound are the costs for the workforce and the changes in the way Australia's workers go about their work that this may well be the defining legislation of this parliament. Much as we saw the mining tax define the Rudd government and the carbon tax define the Gillard government, I do believe this will be the legislation that defines this current government. In addressing this IR bill, I'm happy to state that I have no inherent animus towards unions. I'm not entering this from a union-bashing position.
I grew up on a construction site and spent most of my life in the mining industry, and I saw the decline in union membership in both of those industries during my time. When I started out in Ipswich there were union guys everywhere; if you go onto a construction site nowadays that has changed. It's the same in the mining industry. But I've always been happy to work with them and to have open fights with them. Together we work to make our workplaces safer and more productive. They're part of that conversation. What I do rally against, and what this legislation brings into the debate, is the undue accumulation of power. I rally against that, with its monopoly in business, overreach of bureaucracy and government or, as here, excessive union dominance. That's what this legislation threatens.
Our IR system is not perfect, and I'm not arguing that it is. I join with the Leader of the Opposition and many on this side—and, certainly, on the other side—in wanting to see it improved. Over the long-stay course of the last three decades we have seen many improvements made by both sides, and I recognise that. There's no argument that across Australia's history, our workplace relations have improved. In a comparative view, I look to my experience in managing projects overseas with large, unionised workforces and it would be completely untrue to say that Australia's industrial relations are not generous or supportive of workers. We live in a good country and we've worked hard to get here.
But so profound are the changes that this bill brings to the Australian workplace, it's right to shine a light on the government's attempts to rush this bill through without proper scrutiny. I refer to some of the comments the Prime Minister just made around bringing people together and seeking consensus. The actions taken in pushing this through deserve such scrutiny; the government did not take a clear or consistent position on this legislation to the election and thus cannot claim a mandate for it.
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr HAMILTON: I'm sorry members opposite; I hear the interjections, but that is not true. I'd be happy to see that, because it's not there. There are conflicting accounts on what industrial relations legislation is to be brought through. A clear mandate was not sought and was not given. Labor has also refused to support the opposition's proposal. We have proposed a joint select committee inquiry into the bill, to work through it—to seek what the Prime Minister just talked about, a bringing together of people and seeking consensus. We've offered that, but it was pushed back. We've sought that and we would work with that.
So rushed is this bill that the minister has already amended the bill, on the fly, in the media, even before it hit the floor of the parliament. As legislators, every single one of us should be worried about that—every single one of us should be worried! That is not a sign of good legislation. We come here to represent our communities and to make sure that their voices are heard here—to make sure that the legislation we pass is worthy of the Australian people. To see it get changed on the fly in the media is a clear sign that this is not good legislation.
I want to talk about the impact of multi-employer bargaining on small businesses. This is introducing a huge unknown to small businesses, a segment of our economy that is inherently accepting of a higher risk profile. But in the context of the time we're seeing increasing external risks, like supply security, workforce shortages, inflation and interest rate movements. And amongst all of these risks we're bringing in this legislation. Labor's own budget highlighted how precarious our current economic situation is. The Treasurer has been at pains to point out repeatedly how troubling the economic times are and, indeed, how troubling they will continue to be for the foreseeable future. There's no way that a reduction in productivity resulting from this legislation is an answer to any of those problems.
In its current form, this legislation will have widespread and detrimental impacts on small businesses. Under this legislation, a small business is now exposed to the workplace practices in another small business whose only relationship is geographical proximity. Our workplace relations are being dragged to the lowest common denominator, and there's nothing that a small business which acts in good faith or which engages in best practice can do about it. Worse, this is a hit to small businesses that they did not see coming. According to a recent survey by the Franchise Council of Australia, 68 per cent of small franchise businesses did not understand the industrial relations changes included in the bill or know how they might impact on their business operations. Worse again, of those who felt they did understand the reforms, more than half were concerned about the changes in the bill, particularly concerning the multi-employer bargaining provisions.
Business groups across Australia, small, medium and large, have been posing their opposition to this. SEA, the Australian Chamber of Commerce, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia have all raised their concerns about this, and yet we're having this rushed through.
The aim of enterprise bargaining has long been to encourage and incentivise employers and employees at a workplace to come together to discuss innovation and productivity, and to find better and more rewarding ways to work together. This simply cannot occur across multiple enterprises of different sizes and interests, who will often be in commercial competition with each other, and who will have different internal operating models, commercial concerns and commercial strengths. In a modern economy, it makes no sense to lump the employees of one business in with employees of a totally separate business in the same industry. This is not a solution for a modern economy; this is a throwback to the 1970s-era union appeasement, which was detrimental back then and is detrimental now.
As with small business, this has significant impact on big business. This bill introduces a risk. I want to focus on one specific area, as the debate is being rushed through, and consensus isn't being sought and people aren't being brought together as the Prime Minister intends. This is just one star in a galaxy of issues raised by this bill. I turn specifically to the impact that this bill would have on the certainty of delivering major infrastructure in Australia. Again, I speak from my own experience and from that of people who have come to me since this bill was put forward. Managing IR risk is not new for major projects. In fact, it's an important part of that project delivery. But what this bill does is fundamentally reduce the ability of major projects to secure insurance to cover against industrial action. Business continuity insurance is hard to get—and so it should be. To get it, a project has to demonstrate that every single one of the subcontractors are operating at the highest-performing standards. It is hard to get, but under this legislation the risk of industrial action will be held in the hands of third parties, and it will then be beyond the ability of the delivery organisation to control. Business continuity insurance is now no longer just unaffordable but also simply unobtainable. You cannot manage a risk you do not hold. Major projects in Australia cannot secure that insurance that they have long been required to hold under Australian government contracts.
The fact that this issue hasn't been raised in the debate so far shows how rushed and without a mandate this position is. It shows that this is ill-thought-through. It is an ill-thought-through piece of legislation. I am standing here after the Prime Minister has spoken, raising an issue that has a significant impact on our ability to deliver major projects in Australia. Major projects in Australia are being held up because of what this will deliver, and it hasn't been thought through. There is no clearer demonstration that what we have in front of us is a government that wants to rush this legislation through without having it debated, without going through and collecting that consensus—that mandate—that it claims to have. It refuses to put it to the test like this. We hear those opposite saying, 'No, this must happen,' that this must be our fault, or something—no, these are the actions of this government. This legislation requires significant and thorough review and scrutiny. This impact will be felt across our economy. This reverses three decades of bipartisan support for enterprise level bargaining. This goes against the long-held objective of boosting productivity. And, as the single case that I described shows, this will have a detrimental impact on productivity at a time when we need to be delivering major projects in infrastructure, in defence and energy, building our nation through this period of a cost-of-living crisis. The government has handed over control to dominant unions.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith—Assistant Minister for Defence, Assistant Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Assistant Minister for the Republic) (12:58): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. For the last decade Australian workers have been let down and left behind by our workplace relations system. We have an aged-care system in crisis, with our loved ones not being able to get the care that they deserve because workers can't earn enough to stay in the industry. We've got nurses literally run out of the system because they are run off their feet. Teachers are teaching in subjects that they haven't been trained in because we can't get enough teachers to teach in the subjects that they specialise in—most of them are fed up and they've left the industry. We have major airlines sacking their workforce and contracting out the work that those workers were doing to foreign corporations on lower wages and conditions—and the previous government let them get away with it, with no opposition at all! Gig economy workers are working all day on several platforms just to pay the rent. Miners are working side by side with their colleagues doing the exact same job, but their colleagues are being paid different wages and conditions.
Australian workers have had enough. The system that allowed employers to suppress wages while cost of living went up and up and up has frustrated workers—mortgage payments going up, the cost of running cars going up, energy costs going up, childcare costs going up, insurance going through the roof. Everything was going up except their wages, under the last government. And finally, after the last election, Australian workers woke up to what the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments were all about.
Remember the cuts to penalty rates? This opposition, when they were in government, actively encouraged a policy that saw low-paid workers take home less pay to their families at the end of the week because they encouraged cuts to penalty rates. Labour hire and contracting out of work exploded under the previous government, reducing security of employment for workers. Public sector wage caps—remember those? They actively discouraged wage increases in the public sector, refused to support wage increases for low-paid workers in the Fair Work Commission, refused to support work value cases for some of the lowest-paid workers in our economy who were doing some of the most important work.
Well, the Australian people worked out at the last election that the Liberal and National parties do not support workers; they never have and they never will. And they do not support a system that delivers fair wages. Everything that they did in government was deliberately aimed at suppressing workers' incomes so that they fell further and further behind. And at the election the Australian people said, 'Enough is enough.' They voted for change. They voted for a party committed to supporting workers. They voted for a government with a policy to improve the rights of workers in workplaces, particularly women, and to lift wages and make it easier to bargain in their workplaces. They voted for this bill, and the Albanese Labor government is delivering the commitment that we made to the Australian people by delivering this bill to the parliament. It is a bill that will promote enterprise bargaining through a fairer system that ensures that workers can fairly bargain with their employers and get better outcomes in their workplaces. It is a bill that promotes pay equity in Australian workplaces and closes the gender pay gap over time. It is a bill that will promote job security and real wages growth so that workers aren't falling further and further behind.
The secure jobs, better pay bill will update the objects of the act to include promotion of job security and gender equity to ensure that Australian workers know what this government is about when it comes to workplaces. It will prohibit fixed-term contracts of more than two years, ending the job insecurity that many workers are faced with on a daily basis. It will expand the circumstances under which employees can request flexible work arrangements to meet their family commitments. Importantly, it will make enterprise bargaining easier by prohibiting employers from unilaterally terminating agreements after their expiry date and trying to force workers back onto award wages and reducing their pay and conditions. It will simplify the requirement for approval of enterprise agreements, making the better off overall test easier for unions, workers and employers to work through. And it will ensure that the Fair Work Commission can amend or remove a clause that does not meet the better off overall test.
Importantly, it will support bargaining across multiple employers, particularly in industries where there's a prevalence of low-paid workers and those who are working in precarious employment, who haven't had the bargaining capacity in the past to fairly bargain with their employers. In that respect, it will lift the pay of some of the lowest paid workers in the country. It will also introduce an equal remuneration principle to ensure, particularly for the care and community sector, that secrecy clauses are prohibited in those sectors so that all employees are aware of what their fellow workers are earning, introducing more transparency into the system. Importantly—and I can't believe that this isn't already in legislation—it will prohibit sexual harassment in connection with work. It's unbelievable that it's taken so long for the parliament to realise that this is an issue and to deliver on that.
I want to make some comments about the attacks that those opposite have made on this bill. They've attacked this bill by attacking unions. I want to say to those opposite: who do you think the teachers union is made up of? It's made up of teachers. The nurses union—have a guess! It's made up of nurses. The aged-care union, believe it or not, is made up of aged-care workers. And the miners union—have a guess who runs the miners union? Miners do! So, when you come into this place and you attack unions, you are attacking workers. You are attacking the workers that make up that union. I say shame on you. Shame on you!
Australian workers deserve better than your patronising, belittling contempt for their hard work, particularly when it was these workers that got us through the pandemic and ensured that our economy was one of the few that continued to be on a better trajectory into the future. How dare you attack those workers, who risked their health and safety? Many Australians could stay at home, but many others, like nurses and aged-care workers, had to continue to go to work to ensure that industries continued to run and that loved ones were looked after. You come into this place and you attack them as a means of trying to undermine this bill. Shame on you for doing that. We will not allow that contempt for and that attack on Australian workers. They deserve better, and that is what this bill is about. It is about delivering a better set of conditions under which Australian workers can bargain for their wages into the future.
This bill is not only good for workers; it's good for our economy. We all know that real wages have been falling in Australia. In the last quarter, the September quarter, CPI rose by 7.3 per cent. Guess by how much wages grew in the June quarter, under the wage price index? It was 2.6 per cent on an annual basis. If you can't see from those figures how far workers are falling behind in current circumstances, then you need your head read. The latest GDP figures, in September, showed that inflation isn't being driven by wage rises and that workers are getting less and less of the national income than ever before. In the June quarter, just 44.1 per cent of GDP went to workers' wages. That is a record low in this country. Yet, at the same time, profits as a share of GDP are at almost 30 per cent, the highest level they've ever been except for the 2020 period, with the outlier associated with JobKeeper. Real wages have lagged behind and have lagged behind on productivity growth as well. It shows that wage rises in reality are linked to the ability of workers to negotiate better pay, and that is what this bill is all about and that is what is frustrating about those opposite—that they don't understand that.
Workers need the ability to bargain fairly in their workplaces that they haven't had in the past because of the restrictions that have existed in the act. This bill will deliver those changes to ensure better bargaining conditions and better pay for Australian workers.
Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (13:08): I'm not sure that the claims by the member for Kingsford Smith can be realised. Having regard to the budget that has just been released to the Australian people, it says that real wages in the next three years will diminish because of the inflation rate across this nation. I'm not sure that the claims by the member for Higgins, as strong as they were, can be realised by this bill.
The government members that have spoken today and spoken passionately about this bill have said that this bill is the panacea for all of the ills of the nation. Well, it's not. It's not. Some of us have around long enough to see these changes to legislation that come through.
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr G eorganas ): Order! The member will be heard in silence.
Mr BROADBENT: Oh, I'm happy to have them interact with me! It's actually a great pleasure. I haven't said anything for a long time that has caused anybody any distress, so if I'm doing it now then we're getting somewhere, Deputy Speaker!
The more important part of this is that I don't like to go to the Australian people and say, 'This bill is going to fix every problem in our workplace.' That's because they never do. If you think you're going to fix the wage disparity by just this one bill—that it will all be fixed tomorrow—then it's as the member for Kingsford Smith said, 'In time, we will address some of this.' In time—not tomorrow and not next week, but in time.
If this bill does go towards wage parity between men and women, and does make a difference, it will have my wholehearted support. I'm speaking to those people now who are listening to this debate and getting a view that this, as I said, is the panacea for all ills in every industrial relations area—every business. It's not! Parts of this bill will actually cause businesses like the one I used to own a real problem when they start to say, 'Well, that similar business over there, which is a very, very large one,' perhaps it's a Coles-Myer, 'can afford to pay at a certain rate.' My business, which was totally different, may not have been able to afford that. Did we pay the award? Yes. Did we pay over the award to every employee? Yes—mainly because I didn't want to get into trouble! But we paid over the award—always paid over the award.
Were we flexible? Most of my staff were female and they had children, so we had to be flexible otherwise they wouldn't work with me. Some had to come after they dropped their kids off at school, some had to leave before they came home from school and some chose to work at night so that their partner was home. Of course we were flexible, because we wanted the staff! The most valuable thing for any small business in this country is their staff. You have to have the product to sell, but the staff who are in that building are crucial to the wellbeing of the business. Their relationships with their customers or their relationships with their suppliers are crucially important to the running of any business.
Now we're getting legislation like this, which has been criticised quite strongly by a number of people in the business community, who have said, 'Well, you'd expect them to do that.' What I'm worried about with legislation like this is not the glowing reports of what this legislation may or may not do, it's the unintended consequences of what you may have put forward. We heard the member for Kingsford Smith say that all we have done today is attack unions. I ask the member for Kingsford Smith to go back over the Hansard and try to find somewhere where I have attacked a union. Try to find one place where I have attacked a union. Try to find—
Mr Perrett: You voted for WorkChoices!
Mr BROADBENT: Yes, I did. I was a great supporter of WorkChoices, and survived that campaign very, very well with my support for WorkChoices! That's because all that was doing was putting flexibility into the market. There was more going on in that election campaign than WorkChoices. But please speak up, because everything I've done, all the way through, has been consistent in my desire for flexibility in the workplace, because that's how I had to live as a business owner. I had to be flexible, I paid high wages and I benefited 23 families every day of my life and their lives while I was in that business. And I'm proud of it.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Georganas ): Order! The member for Moreton will cease interjecting.
Mr BROADBENT: What you're doing, member for Moreton is attacking every business owner as the enemy, and they're not. I've seen what they do for their employees and I've seen how they look after their employees. I've seen how they care for their employees, and those are the stories that you never hear because you're not listening. You never listen, and if you're not prepared to listen then you're not going to know what's going on out there in the community. There has been very strong—
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member will resume his seat for a moment. There is far too much noise. Every member in this place deserves to be heard in silence.
Mr BROADBENT: I know they're frustrated and I know that some of them are quite uncomfortable with parts of this legislation. When it leaves this place it's actually going to be split, and the good bits of this legislation will go through and the controversial bits will be held over until next year when they can do some further consideration. It does need closer scrutiny. You all know it needs closer scrutiny and you all know, because of the action in the House yesterday and today, that the bill is being rushed through. In fact, members are not being allowed to take their full time to speak on the bill.
You could say, 'Well, hang on, you were part of a government that crunched a whole lot of bills through very quickly.' I'll admit to that, but I won't take what the member for Kingsford Smith said, and that was that I should be ashamed. I'm not ashamed to put forward another point of view. Isn't that the role of democracy in this House? Isn't there an opportunity for people to stand up and speak their piece and have a say on the legislation? In fact, that's what you are withdrawing from the opposition, putting forward reasonable processes and reasonable discussion and engagement.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr BROADBENT: I'm enjoying the engagement of the parliament today. I'd love to hear any of you put forward a proposition where you said—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Georganas ): Order! The member for Moreton will cease interjecting. I will ask people to leave the chamber if it continues.
Mr BROADBENT: No, the member for Moreton is a friend of mine. I would hate for him to leave the chamber on my behalf because I couldn't talk to his family for months.
It is important that all legislation that comes before the House gets reasonable scrutiny. I know this will now go to the Senate and to a Senate committee where it will be reviewed. But the opportunity is now; give the parliament a chance to address some of the issues that have been raised. The No. 1 issue that has been raised is: this bill hasn't been thought through far enough. There will be unintended consequences from this. It will damage small businesses who will be caught up in a net they don't to be caught in. They don't have the HR and all the things that back it. They have organisations. We were part of the Australian Retail Association. They did the negotiations, they set the award, we paid the bills, and we generously paid them. There were other benefits that employees get that are not heard of in this legislation. I admit there are some employers who are totally inappropriate with their staff. They do not pay the appropriate amounts because there are rogues in every area of life. There are people who do not perform in the way they should perform. Having said that, I know the next contribution from this side will be a class act, so I'll stop there to allow the next speaker to make a very good proposal on this matter.
Mr RAE (Hawke) (13:17): The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill represents part of the legislative implementation of our commitment to get wages moving again. After a decade of wage stagnation, it is high time that Australian workers see the pay rise that they so sorely need and so sorely deserve. This decade of stagnation was not caused by simple economic mismanagement but rather by something far more sinister. The nine years of wage suppression under the previous government was a deliberate policy decision. In fact, it was only earlier this year that the former Prime Minister, the former Treasurer, the former minister for health, the former Minister for Finance, the member for Cook, et cetera, et cetera said that raising the minimum wage by just a dollar an hour—a single dollar an hour—would be 'reckless and dangerous'.
The real danger to our economy is the gap between wages and profits. The real danger lies in failing to pass on a dividend from productivity gains to workers in Australia. Throughout the last decade, those opposite regularly and wrongly cited a false economic imperative for wage suppression. In fact, our economy has been damaged by their lack of regard for Australian workers. Organised labour is the best and most efficient way of regulating labour prices in our economy. A well regulated labour price is a necessary prerequisite for economic health and sustainability. By weakening workers at the bargaining table, the reckless former Liberal government fundamentally compromised the health of our economy. And let's be clear: the Liberals fundamentally believe in propping up profits at a direct cost to Australian workers and their wages.
A government member: And their families.
Mr RAE: And their families; indeed. Driven by their desire to ensure everyday Australian workers had less money in their pockets and less money to pay their household bills, the strategy of the previous government was to weaken the rights of these workers in the enterprise bargaining process. It is therefore no surprise that we are seeing fewer agreements being struck between workers and employers and fewer again being renegotiated on their time lines prior to expiration.
As I said, whilst the dismantling of our enterprise bargaining process may assist the big business mates of those opposite, it has undeniably damaged our nation's economy. Wage share of national income is at an all-time low. Worker have seen no real wage growth over the last decade, with wages at effectively the same level as in 2013. It is no coincidence that that was when Labor last left government and the decade of wilful Liberal wage suppression began.
The consequences of this deliberate wage suppression have been devastating for Australian workers and their families. In my electorate of Hawke there are thousands of workers in insecure work, unsure of how much money they will have each week to support their families, pay their bills and meet the terms of their mortgages. There are tens of thousands of hardworking families in Melton, Bacchus Marsh and Sunbury who have bought houses and established themselves in our wonderful community, many coming from overseas in search of a better life. This bill is about providing those families and those workers with better pay and better conditions, reflective of the immense contribution they make to our communities, our society and our economy.
In Hawke, there are 15,000 workers across health care, social assistance, education and training. Eighty per cent of these workers, in places like Bacchus Marsh, Diggers Rest and Ballan, are women. Our communities and our country love to celebrate the contribution these workers make. This is the bill that will ensure that those workers are given the wage increases that match that contribution that we celebrate. This legislation will tip the scales and ensure that workers are given a fair and significant platform from which to exercise their rights at the enterprise bargaining table.
The bill will ban pay secrecy clauses, long used to conceal discrepancies in pay, particularly those between men and women. The bill will establish two new Fair Work Commission expert panels, one on pay equity and one on the care and community sector. It is well known and broadly agreed that care work is undervalued, underpaid and all too insecure. So many of these care workers live in Hawke—in Hillside, in Sunbury and in Melton. This bill is about fighting to get them the pay rises that they deserve.
Whilst we recently welcomed a 15 per cent increase in the minimum wage of aged-care workers, this was the result of a long process, including the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. I note that some members have cited this pay rise as a demonstration that this legislation isn't needed. Of them I ask: are we really going to have a royal commission for every industry that needs a pay rise; are we really going to ask that Australian industries become so dysfunctional that they warrant a royal commission before a pay rise is provided?
We cannot rely on one-off processes to change the trajectory of wages in our economy. We must provide significant reform to empower workers at the bargaining table.
We've heard from some in this place that we shouldn't move quickly to enact this important legislation, that there is no urgency to deliver this reform. How long do Australian workers have to wait? They've already waited 10 long years under the previous Liberal government. We on this side of the House will not stand by while the Liberals try to continue to suppress wages from the opposition benches.
In September the government hosted the Jobs and Skills Summit here in Canberra, along with local summits around the country, including the outer western Melbourne summit that I hosted with my colleague, the member for Lalor. This summit brought together unions, employers and governments to discuss our shared economic challenges and potential solutions. The legislation being debated here today is a direct outcome of that extensive consultation process. Any suggestion that the consultation process has been insufficient is nothing more than an insincere attempt to simply delay this important reform. In fact, the consultation process has already led to several government amendments to the bill, including allowing businesses and workers who already successfully negotiate fair, single enterprise agreements to continue to do so, and not extending multi-employer bargaining to industries in which it is neither appropriate nor necessary.
This bill is a about restoring the balance between the power of workers and the power of employers at the bargaining table. It does not set the conditions for economic disruption, for industrial action. But in its rebalancing it demands that employers take a more constructive and responsible approach to bargaining. With profit growth outstripping wages growth so substantially, this bill lays the pathway to a fairer distribution of income from business activities and is ultimately a vehicle for delivery of the real wages growth that our society and our economy so desperately needs.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:27): We once had, in this place, a policy called 'fight back.' It didn't work so well. Now we have 'payback.' This is payback. This is the Labor Party's payback. This is what they're going to do for the unions. Brought to the unions in time for the union Christmas parties, rushed through the federal parliament with debate virtually gagged, rammed through the House of Representatives, rammed through the Senate—hopefully not. Hopefully they will show a bit more common sense—
Government members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I appreciate that those opposite have the numbers in the House. Speaking of numbers, how many of those opposite have ever run a small business—not into the ground but just run a small business? Not many. Let's do little bit more interaction. How many of those opposite have been a member of a union for more 21 years? Again, not many. I've run a small business, and I've run a successful small business. I've also been a union member for 21 years—
Ms Scrymgour interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I'm getting a few claps. I appreciate the role of unions. I do. I come from south-west New South Wales where the shearers' strikes of the 1890s were in some way a genesis for the union movement. But I have also seen what the destructive power of unions does. I also see that the members opposite are the best money that unions can buy—$100 million since 2007 straight into the ALP coffers—and that is why we're rushing through this particular policy at this particular time. Why the rush? Why not, as so many of the stakeholders have said, just consider this; look at it in detail; make sure that it is considered, practical, effective. No, no, no. That wouldn't be in time for the union Christmas parties, would it? That is why it should be called 'payback.' It's called the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. I've got to say—I'll give you some credit—'secure jobs, better pay'; you're very good at politics, not that good at policy. And that's the problem with this. It is an ill-named bill. It's not about secure jobs, it's not about better pay, and deep in your heart of hearts you know it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43—enough time for everyone to take a breath, I think—and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member was interrupted—
Mr McCormack: I was interrupted.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: and it's entirely unclear to me, you will be able to continue your remarks when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Korea: Crowd Disaster
Mr LAXALE (Bennelong) (13:30): In a gymnasium in Seoul rows of trainers, high heels, jackets and Halloween accessories lie spread out on the floor. They are all numbered in the hope that their owners will come to collect them, but many may never be claimed. These items belong to victims and survivors of the recent crowd crush in Seoul, which tragically claimed the lives of 156 people. Many of those injured and those who tragically passed had chosen to simply have a night out, to dress up and celebrate Halloween in the Itaewon nightlife district, many likely heading there for the first time since the pandemic. This was a night intended to celebrate fun and friendship, but one that we know ended in tragedy.
Last Friday in Bennelong a vigil was held in Eastwood Plaza to commemorate the victims of this tragedy. The vigil was organised and staffed by members of Bennelong's tightknit Korean Australian community. Because of their efforts locals, including me, were able to pay their respects to the souls of those who tragically passed. From 9 am to 9 pm hundreds of people laid white flowers in front of a makeshift shrine in Eastwood Plaza. Hundreds of locals were also able to sign a condolence book, which I understand will be sent back to Itaewon.
My heart goes out to those mourning the loss of loved ones due to this tragedy and my thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of those impacted during this difficult time. Itaewon he sang ja ted-eh. May the victims of Itaewon rest in peace.
Braddon Electorate: Local Government Elections
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (13:32): Throwing your hat into the ring and running for local council is a great community service, and across Tasmania local government elections have just finished. I want to officially welcome the many new faces to our region's eight local councils. Among them are six new mayors. Congratulations to: Teeny Brumby at Burnie; Cheryl Fuller, Central Coast; Gerard Blizzard at Circular Head; Alison Jarman at Devonport; Marcus Blackie on King Island; and Mary Duniam, who became the first Waratah-Wynyard female mayor. Also congratulations to Peter Freshney at Latrobe and Shane Pitt on the West Coast on your the re-election.
I'm all about encouraging competent candidates to run for these positions. That's the only attribute that should matter. Across the north-west, west coast and King Island voters have elected a highly credentialled, capable, forward-thinking community of members to represent them. My relationship with our mayors and general managers, I'm proud to say, has been very positive through my last two terms. I look forward to working together and continuing to make this region the best it can be. I want to conclude by thanking retiring mayors, deputies and councillors for your respective services. The past years have been difficult, and I want to thank you for your valued support and your contribution to your local communities.
Adelaide Electorate: Sport
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (13:33): I rise to speak about the agreement between the City of West Torrens and crows football club to redevelop Thebarton Oval as a new home for the Adelaide Crows. There's no doubt that everyone's relieved that finally the crows have a home, but it hasn't been without concern from some of the residents. Primarily this is because residents are extremely concerned that the development will lead to the loss of open space in the area and particularly in Kings Reserve, which is the oval adjacent to it. I know that the council is working very hard with the residents to make sure that all concerns are heard. I can understand how many residents are concerned by this. It's important to note the impact that Kings Reserve will have on groups that currently use it, like the MA Hawks soccer club, which is one of the local clubs in my electorate. That's why it's vital, and I urge both parties to continue consultation and communication. The residents want to see open space remaining. We've had some commitment from the council that that will be the case. It's also so important that all opinions are listened to respectfully and that information is transparent and ongoing.
This development could be an opportunity for a wonderful open space for the residents, which we currently have, but also for ensuring that the current footprint of open space remains and that consultation with the council continues. (Time expired)
Groom Electorate: Jacaranda Day
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (13:39): Nothing gives me more pleasure than to come to this place and speak about my favourite little town of Goombungee. The Goombungee Jacaranda Day festival has been a fixture of the Toowoomba region's social calendar for 24 years. It's a fantastic event that I encourage anyone to come along to see. I was thrilled to attend last weekend and show my support for what is a great community event—celebrating the town becoming a sea of purple. We had a very late bloom for the Jacarandas this year but, thankfully, they came out on time. I know the member for Pearce will fondly remember the sea of purple that comes across Toowoomba at that time of year. What I love about Jacaranda Day is that every club, organisation and business in town gets involved. They contribute by hosting stalls, serving food and participating in the parade—and who doesn't love a fantastic smalltown parade?
I personally got the chance to sample the cooking of the wonderful ladies from the Goombungee QCWA—yes, scones and pikelets—inspect a couple of great Sunbeam motorcycles on display and check out the museum's new diorama showcasing the town's history. It's the incredible effort of these groups and their hardworking volunteers that helps attract so many visitors to the festival every year. It was great to see the balcony of the historic Pioneer Arms Hotel absolutely full, with the owner, Tom, doing a roaring trade. People don't make the drive from Brisbane and beyond just to come out and get the Jacaranda social media op—they come to experience the Goombungee hospitality, which is on display at the pub. I give a huge thank you to the organising committee and everyone who played a part in making Jacaranda Day happen. I can't wait to join you again for the 25th celebration next year.
Werriwa Electorate: St Hurmizd Assyrian Primary School
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Government Whip) (13:36): Recently, I attended the celebrations for the 20th anniversary of St Hurmizd Assyrian Primary School. The school first accepted students in 2002, and the first cohort was approximately 76 students. The school's enrolment has grown steadily and now has almost 800 students from preschool to year 6. The school has state-of-the-art classrooms and opportunities to study the latest technology and science subjects. The emcees for the night were David Daniel and Reema Khamme, who were from the original student cohort and, like many other graduates, are accomplished in their chosen fields. I acknowledge Aaron Boyd of Assyrian Christian Schools, spiritual leaders His Grace Mar Benyamin Elya, Bishop of Victoria New Zealand and Chairperson of the Assyrian Christian Schools, and His Beatitude Mar Meelis Zaia AM, Archbishop of Australia, New Zealand and Lebanon. It was the Archbishop Zaia's vision that made the school a reality. In his words, it is 'a school, in which our people from all denominations will have pride in knowing that they have accomplished their national obligations upon which rely all coming generations'. It was a really lovely evening to celebrate with parents, friends, teachers and the clergy. The highlight was the performance by the K-6 choir and the traditional dancing by the children. It was just a lovely night.
North Sydney Electorate: Environmental Conservation
Ms TINK (North Sydney) (13:38): The United Nations General Assembly has called this the 'Decade on Ecosystem Restoration', and protecting our urban tree canopy offers a unique opportunity at the local level to contribute to this vital mission. Around the world, cities are working to protect, maintain and restore precious urban ecosystems, which are critical for mental health, biodiversity and sustainable development. Yet, concerningly, my electorate of North Sydney is losing many hundreds of mature trees as they are pushed aside to make way for large infrastructure projects with opaque to non-existent disconnected business cases.
From Lane Cove to Cammeray, North Sydney to Neutral Bay, people are sharing their sense of despair with me, literally pleading for something to be done at the national level. They've told me things like, 'My children know I can't drive past the oval anymore—I get too upset,' or, 'Please add me to your list of devastated North Sydney residents who are horrified at what is unfolding before them.' Heartbreakingly, they're also consistently asking me, 'Please, I beg you—do everything in your power to limit the number of trees being removed.'
We cannot hope to address the climate crisis without all levels of government working together with our communities to protect urban trees. At this stage, the current destruction is being driven by state policy. I encourage the federal government to play a greater role in overseeing and coordinating our response to this challenge on a national scale. This is a decade to restore, not destroy.
Macarthur Electorate: Roads
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (13:39): I recently wrote to every councillor on the Campbelltown City Council encouraging them to publicly push the New South Wales Liberal Perrottet government to urgently act on Appin Road to save the lives of constituents and also to put in place fauna protections, especially for our koalas, along Appin Road. I was encouraged to do this because Sutherland Shire Council recently didn't have any problem getting the state government to stop development of koala habitat at Woronora Heights, to protect their koalas. Yet the state government has done nothing to improve the notorious Appin Road where there have been many deaths and loss of wildlife, particularly our koalas, on an ongoing basis for many years. The state government does absolutely nothing.
Appin Road is infamous in my electorate. Some of my patients, people known to me and the brother of one of our local councillors have lost their lives on Appin Road. It is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that is being ignored by the Perrottet government. It is a disgraceful act by them. They are developing tens of thousands of new houses in the Macarthur area and doing nothing to provide local infrastructure. It's time every Campbelltown councillor stood up and acted against the Perrottet government and got them to act.
Assyrian People
Ms LE (Fowler) (13:41): For hundreds of years the Assyrian people have been persecuted. It has taken the form of kidnapping, torture and public shaming. They were uprooted from their homes and forced to rebuild their lives as dispersed fragments in different parts of the globe, resulting in a scattered nation. The Assyrian people are minority groups who have fled the wars in their traditional homeland, which encompasses Iraqi, Syria, parts of Turkey and Iran.
Australians of Assyrian heritage commemorated their martyrs on 7 August. I joined the Australian Assyrian community of Fowler in honouring the Assyrian martyrs who gave their lives in various massacres and atrocities and who sacrificed their lives in many wars, including Anzac battles alongside our Australian soldiers in Gallipoli. It was a privilege to take part in commemorative events on two occasions: one hosted by the Coalition of the Assyrian Parties in Australia and the other by the Assyrian Democratic Movement. Considering the large Assyrian Australian population in my Fowler electorate, it is imperative that we remember and commemorate their martyrs and the sacrifices they have made.
The Assyrians are an ancient civilisation that established the first library and introduced the earliest known laws and regulations, which are the foundation of most countries around the world. It is because of these laws that we are here today to democratically represent our people. It is my honour to be representing this community in Fowler. I look forward to your continued success in Australia and beyond.
Huntlee Tavern
Mr REPACHOLI (Hunter) (13:42): The annual AHA New South Wales Awards for Excellence are the pinnacle of the hospitality industry's event calendar. The awards recognise the best venues in the industry in a range of categories, from best experience to best food to best entertainment. The winners were recently announced. The Hunter electorate is proud to say that one of our very own—the Huntlee Tavern at Huntlee—was named as the best live music venue with some of the best DJs, bands and soloists entertaining the crowds every week.
The world's best establishments, restaurants, bars and bistros are located in the Hunter region, and this just goes to prove it. Throughout my campaign I visited many restaurants, cafes and bistros, and lots of burger places as well, across the Hunter region and I can undoubtedly say that the Huntlee Tavern is one of the best across-the-board. It definitely left its mark with me. The people of the Hunter deserve world-class facilities, and this is one of them. There's no doubt about that.
I congratulate Jason and the team at Huntlee Tavern on this award. The Hunter is so proud of you and this achievement. I can't wait to drop in for a celebratory schooner or two.
Royal Flying Doctor Service
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (13:44): There were those who said it wouldn't happen, there were those who said it was a pipedream and there were those who actively stood in the way, but I can tell you it is happening. What is it? It is the new Royal Flying Doctor Service aviation training facility in Bundaberg, on which we turned a sod just last week. The contract has been awarded to Murchie Constructions, a local construction company. There is over $20 million for this facility, $15 million from the Hinkler Regional Deal, and it is being delivered. Why is it important? It's because every single minute, every single hour and every single day that the pilots can be trained in a simulator are minutes and hours and days of availability for the Royal Flying Doctor Service planes so that they can get out there and do their job, on standby, providing rescue and other services across regional Australia. It will be for the new King Air B360s. These are the new aircraft that the RFDS are moving across to.
It's another niche for our economy. It is more activity, particularly for our local hotels and service providers. All of those pilots from across Australia will be trained in Bundaberg. It is a great opportunity. Congratulations to the Royal Flying Doctor Service—and a shout-out to Domanii Cameron. This is the first event that she's coordinated. Some might know her as a former Queensland press gallery journalist. She's now out there doing that good work with the Royal Flying Doctor Service delivered in Bundaberg by the Hinkler Regional Deal as part of the coalition's agreement.
Solo Advocacy Australia
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (13:45): Recently I had the opportunity to meet with a constituent of mine, Dr Gen Ford, the founder of Solo Advocacy Australia. This is a group dedicated to raising awareness of solo households and advocating equal recognition of their rights and needs.
In my electorate of Macnamara, 41.3 per cent of my constituents live in a solo person household, and that's almost double the state and national averages. There are many paths that lead to people living on their own. Some do so by choice, others by force of circumstance. For many, the solo life can be joyous and rich and fulfilling, but some struggle as they manage their finances, housing costs, health and wellbeing on their own. Solo people often find it more difficult to pay rent, and at the moment they're finding it particularly hard.
People who live in shared houses or with partners are able to maintain physical contact with people. During the pandemic, that was really difficult for people in solo households. Gen, with her advocacy, managed to accumulate a petition with over 25,000 signatures and was able to improve the pandemic legislation to include social bubbles for solo households.
I'm proud of the work that Solo Advocacy does for people. I'm proud of people who are living in solo houses. As they say, the solo life is inherently worthy and valuable. And we are proud to be associated with them.
Busselton Hospice Care
Mrs MARINO (Forrest) (13:47): Busselton Hospice Care in my electorate is a wonderful group of local volunteers who provide professional palliative services that offer emotional and practical support, as well as social connection, to those living with life-limiting diagnoses and illness; those receiving palliative care and their caregivers; and the bereaved. I cannot thank these amazing volunteers enough for their time and for the caring and compassion that they have provided for over 30 years. They have a history of delivering professionally trained, high-quality services to our Busselton community, and I want to thank the current and previous volunteer board members as well. They've told me that, post COVID, there's now greater recognition that the majority of people wish to remain at home during palliative care, which reinforces the need for the excellent outreach provided by Busselton Hospice Care.
Historically, the group relied on funding from the local community and their own fundraising efforts to support the employment of palliative care nursing staff for the Busselton hospital. Currently they manage the volunteer program for the hospital's four-bed hospice unit. They continue to advocate a blended funding model—a combination of government, philanthropic and community funding, working together—to ensure high-quality compassionate care and connection to our community. As co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Palliative Care I thank them for their 30 years of volunteer caring and providing palliative care. (Time expired)
Hasluck Electorate: Telecommunications
Ms LAWRENCE (Hasluck) (13:49): Many people in my electorate are very pleased by the Treasurer and Minister Rowland's announcement about addressing the deficiencies in NBN and mobile phone coverage. Hasluck is situated in the foothills of the Perth hills, and connectivity is a major concern not just for businesses and residents but because we live in a bushfire prone area. To that end, the NBN emergency management awareness campaign was a very welcome announcement this week. But more work is needed, particularly on connectivity and on coordination between the service providers.
The Hills' black spots are an ongoing problem. The audit on mobile coverage that was announced last month will help to address and prioritise those areas that are needing targeted attention. The Swan Valley has a low-density population, but it's actually a major tourist destination, hosting tens of thousands of people every week. They need reliable NBN. The Swan Valley Strategic Leadership Group, led by Graeme Yukich, and the Swan Valley Tourism Alliance, led by Jon Jessop, have stressed for some 10 years now the vital need for access to reliable infrastructure to support their business, the community and their customers, so it's great to be part of a government that is now committed to improving the NBN and also the mobile connectivity in the Peri-Urban Mobile Program. Some $2.4 billion of investment over the next four years— (Time expired)
Grey Electorate: Health Care
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Opposition Whip) (13:50): I often rise in this place to lament the lack of country doctors, and I must say I'm quite happy today to have a good story to tell. Dr Holly Deer from Crystal Brook in my electorate of Grey has received recognition as GP of the year for SA and NT by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners in their 2022 awards. She will go on now to represent South Australia at the national awards. She joined the practice in 2012, having been a GP registrar at the Crystal Brook clinic before that time.
Holly has become a trusted and respected member of the Crystal Brook community, and they really enjoy having her there. She has married to a local businessman and that's a very good thing to do. She now has a family of her own growing up in the mid-north town. In fact, when I rang up Holly the other day to give her my personal congratulations, a couple of those children were making a bit of noise. Like a lot of mothers, she managed to juggle that.
I commend Dr Richard Mackinnon whose foresight and commitment to rural practice has seen the Crystal Brook Medical Practice not only service the local community with a team of doctors but also become an accredited training practice for registrars, interns and medical students. It is the envy of many regional centres. I just wish I had many more places like Crystal Brook that could attract the number of doctors we need. They provide specialist and allied health services and are a teaching practice.
Little Climate Heroes Playgroup
Ms MILLER-FROST (Boothby) (13:52): Last Sunday afternoon, I attended the Little Climate Heroes Playgroup organised by Australian Parents for Climate Action. There I was grilled by some very well-informed children who asked me questions about politics, about elections and about Canberra. They asked me how much paperwork was involved in being a local member, how to influence politicians and, particularly, how they can tell if politicians will actually do what they say they're going to do. They also told me what they cared about, and climate action was No. 1, but they also cared about fairness and a fair go for everyone. They showed me their community garden with their bumper crop of lettuce and strawberries, and they talked about what they're doing to make a difference in their community, like riding their bikes and growing their own food.
It was great to spend time with these kids, who are our future leaders. Their understanding and care for the environment, for the world around them and for the lives of others show that the world will be in good hands. Many thanks to Peter and Eleanor, Hamish and Rachel, Alpa and Conal, Rose and Thomas, Nathan and Jayden, Isla and Ninna, Albie and Fergus, Nola and Luca, Eddie, Leo and Matilda, and Rose and Alfie, and, of course, thanks to their parents for organising the event.
Australian Parents for Climate Action is a national group of parents who care about the future we are leaving for our children, and this is a great way to kick off their national month of action.
Budget
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (13:53): Gold Coasters are hurting, and the Treasurer's budget recently failed to outline any plan to assist. Indeed, last week's 25 basis point increase means a Gold Coaster with a typical mortgage of $750,000 will now pay $1,200 more per month than when rates started rising in May. Australians are being told by this Treasurer that their power bills are going up by a staggering 56 per cent. Their mortgage payments are going up, the cost of groceries is going up, inflation is surging, and the government still has no plan to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.
Australians can't wait another seven months. Almost every day during the campaign, Mr Albanese promised he would show up and take responsibility. It's about time the Prime Minister actually did that: stop making excuses and deliver a plan.
The government had the opportunity to deliver a budget that outlined a short-term plan to reach or even approach budget balance, and to contain interest rates and inflation. It had the opportunity to map a longer term plan to empower aspiration and enterprise, and to reassert the role of productivity and lower taxes in driving growth in real wages. We said we would work with the government if it stayed true to commonsense principles but, overwhelmingly, the budget was a missed opportunity. This is, ultimately, a higher-taxing, higher-spending traditional, old-fashioned Labor failed budget.
Robertson Electorate: Coastal Twist Festival
Dr REID (Robertson) (13:55): On 3 October this year, the Central Coast came together to celebrate diversity, inclusion and LGBTQIA+ pride at the annual Coastal Twist Festival, organised by none other than the Naughty Noodle Fun Haus and Central Coast Pride. The day's weather could not have been more perfect for this super spectacular, colourful and musical occasion. The community came in their thousands to enjoy the live musical acts, to taste the amazing food and to buy the excellent products and services that were on offer from local Central Coast businesses.
It is so important that regional and rural areas of Australia have events like Coastal Twist, because it can often be challenging for many in the LGBTQIA+ community to connect, be visible and celebrated outside the city areas. The Coastal Twist Festival demonstrated the vibrancy, talent and welcoming nature so common in this community, and I was honoured to be part of the festival with my own stall.
After the past couple of years of COVID-19 restrictions, this year's festival was an immense success and I congratulate the community of the Central Coast and suburbs like Woy Woy, Umina Beach, Ettalong Beach, Pearl Beach, Booker Bay and Patonga for embracing this year's festival. I would like to commend the ever-amazing director, Glitta Supernova; Central Coast Pride co-founder, activist and writer, Juan Iocco; and also Melissa Cook, Ryan Burrett, Star Shine and Joshua Maxwell on ensuring that this year's Coastal Twist Festival was a huge success.
Wall, Dr Ian Baker, AM
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:56): I rise to pay tribute to Dr Ian Baker Wall AM, who, sadly, passed away two weeks ago and whose funeral will be held this Friday at St Peter's Cathedral in Adelaide.
Ian, along with two colleagues from the University of Adelaide, established the business CODAN, which is now listed on the ASX. It's an electronics-manufacturing company that produces products for the mining and defence sectors. Ian, of course, leaves a remarkable contribution behind. That business employs hundreds of South Australians and exports around the globe. But just as important as his contributions economically are those that he made as a philanthropist, contributing to so many worthy and worthwhile causes throughout the South Australian community in a variety of areas: education, the arts and community service.
To his wife, Pammie Wall, and to all those who have been touched by Ian's passing we give our very best. We thank Ian for such a remarkable life and the legacy that he leaves behind, particularly in my home state of South Australia. Vale, Ian Wall.
National Cervical Cancer Awareness Week
Ms FERNANDO (Holt) (13:58): On Monday of this week I had the pleasure of attending the launch event for National Cervical Cancer Awareness Week. The Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, addressed the launch, as did the CEO of the Australian Cervical Cancer Foundation, Vicky Darling. It was wonderful to hear that we're on track to eliminate cervical cancer by 2035, but there's a gap between this goal and the community's understanding of the disease and how to prevent it.
A new poll released on Monday showed that 43 per cent of Australians do not believe that vaccination could prevent cervical cancer, despite it being one of the most powerful prevention strategies. The survey also showed that 32 per cent of Australians did not identify screening as a prevention strategy. This number must be reduced. We know that the national cervical program has halved the number of deaths from cervical cancer. In my electorate of Holt, only 41 per cent of women have been screened for cervical cancer, one of the lowest rates in this country. Screening saves lives, and I encourage everyone in my community to get screened. Make sure your kids receive their full course of HPV vaccinations and let's make cervical cancer history by 2035.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Interest Rates
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (13:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. At Labor's 2022 election campaign launch, the Prime Minister promised: 'Labor has real, lasting plans for cheaper mortgages.' Yesterday, the Prime Minister denied making this statement. Can the Prime Minister just provide a straight answer: did he make this statement—yes or no?
Ms Ley: Fess up!
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not off to a good start. I give the call to the Prime Minister.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:00): The whole premise of the Leader of the Opposition's question is wrong.
Mr Dutton: What? You didn't say it?
Mr ALBANESE: But I'm happy to talk about the—
Mr Dutton: Yes or no!
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.
Mr Dutton: What about a straight answer?
The SPEAKER: Order, the Leader of the Opposition! The Prime Minister is within 13 seconds of his answer. You've asked your question. I ask the House to be silent. I'd ask that the same courtesy be shown to ministers when they are answering questions. I call the Prime Minister.
Mr ALBANESE: He's very angry, Mr Speaker. I'm asked about the 2022 campaign launch in Perth of the Australian Labor Party. Let me say that there wasn't a lot of anger there. What was there was enormous support. It was the first time for a very long time, if ever—certainly in the modern era—that a major political party chose to launch their election campaign in Perth. And I can think of at least four reasons why that was successful—at least four. When I look across there, at the member for Swan and the member for Pearce and the member for Tangney and the member for Hasluck, I'm reminded of how successful that campaign launch was.
The former government, of course, had prime ministers who couldn't find Perth. They couldn't find Perth over their nine years in office. But what we did as one of the centrepieces of our launch there was, of course, the Help to Buy scheme. What the Help to Buy scheme, based upon successful schemes that have operated in Perth, enables them to do—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: I'm asked about the housing policy; I'm asked about the 2022 campaign—
The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much noise. I'm going to ask the Prime Minister to pause for a moment. I'm trying to hear the Prime Minister, but there is continual interjecting on my left. It makes it very difficult, and I'm looking at you, the Leader of the Nationals. I call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr DUTTON: It is on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked: did he make a statement about promising cheaper mortgages—yes or no? We just want a straight answer.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is answering the question. The question was about plans announced at the 2022 campaign launch, regarding interest rates and mortgages. I'm going to give the Prime Minister the call.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr ALBANESE: He's so angry, and it's just after two o'clock!
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can continue with his answer.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: It'll get worse: we've got an hour and 10 minutes.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Mr Dutton: What about the truth?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, it's a funny way to help. I give the call to the Prime Minister, and I'm asking the House for order. We're into the first question. I don't want to issue a general warning, but I'm calling the Prime Minister to continue his answer.
Mr A LBANESE: Thanks, Mr Speaker.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. He may not—
Mr Dutton: You sit down like a petulant child. Why don't you answer the question?
The SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark to assist the House.
Mr Dutton: I withdraw, Mr Speaker, and if the Prime Minister—
The SPEAKER: You may resume your seat. For the benefit of all members, if the Speaker asks you to withdraw, you withdraw immediately, without any other comment. I give the call to the Prime Minister.
Mr ALBANESE: They're not happy, and it's only Wednesday.
At the 2022 campaign launch we had, as one of the centrepieces of that launch, our Help to Buy Scheme. That was based upon the very successful scheme that's been implemented for many years in Western Australia. There are also schemes being looked at in New South Wales by the Liberal government and of course being implemented in Victoria as well. Our Help to Buy Scheme is a good policy, and it was in the budget.
Cybersecurity
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (14:05): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to protect Australians in the wake of the Medibank data being leaked?
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security) (14:05): I thank the member for Paterson. The parliament would be aware that last night data that was exfiltrated during the Medibank attack was released on the dark web. Based on the information that we have at this moment, the number of citizens whose medical information may have been compromised is small at this stage. But I want the Australian people to understand that that is likely to change, and we are going through a difficult period now that may last for weeks—possibly months—not days and hours. I cannot articulate the disgust I have for the scumbags who are at the heart of this criminal act. People are entitled to keep their health information private. Even amongst ransomware attackers the idea of releasing the personal medical information of other people is considered beyond the pale. So, make no mistake about it: this is not just any ordinary group of scummy criminals; this is the lowest of the low.
I want Australians to know that your government stands with you. The Prime Minister said this morning that he is a Medibank customer, like millions of other Australians. I am, too. The Australian government has been preparing for the eventuality that is now taking place for a number of weeks. We've been doing this through the National Coordination Mechanism, which the Minister for Health and I both attended this morning. The actions of the National Coordination Mechanism to prepare for what is taking place are extensive. This includes placing protective security around government data. It includes state police working with affected individuals. It includes the organisation of mental health support and counselling. It includes putting in place management plans around people who have some very specific vulnerabilities.
I want to acknowledge the outstanding work that has taken place already from the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Signals Directorate. They are the best in the world at what they do, and the Australian government thanks you from the bottom of our hearts for your efforts in helping protect us. The eSafety Commissioner has been included in the National Coordination Mechanism because social media companies and indeed traditional media companies are going to be crucial in our national response to this problem. And I say now, I know I do not need to point out the importance of social media companies not allowing this information to be published and not allowing it to be shared on your platforms, and the importance of traditional media companies not publishing the private information of Australians. If you do so you will be aiding and abetting the scumbags who are at the heart of these criminal acts, and I know you would not do that to your own country and your own fellow citizens.
The Australian government is stepping up and addressing this problem. I've said before that we are about five years behind where we should be with regard to cybersecurity, and there is a power of work underway at the moment to change that. We are working hard to protect you and to protect our country. (Time expired)
Budget
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:08): My question is to the Treasurer. An average family is $2,000 worse off under this budget, with their mortgage going up by more than $1,000 since May. When can this family expect the government to deliver on its promise of cheaper mortgages?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:09): Well, it's about time: two weeks and one day since the budget was handed down and the shadow Treasurer has now asked his second question about something to do with the budget. I welcome the question. I welcome his interest, even if it's belated and typically incompetent and misunderstood. Of all the people in this place who are qualified to ask questions about the cost of living, the shadow Treasurer would be in about 150th place or 151st place, or wherever we're up to now, because he is more responsible than anyone else in this place for the fact that energy prices are going up. There are two people in the world most responsible for what we're seeing in energy prices. One of them sits in the Kremlin, and the other one sits over there. What we saw from—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Fletcher: On relevance. You have allowed ministers a preamble but you've drawn them back to the question. The question was very tight. It was about mortgages. And the minister, the Treasurer, needs to respond to the question.
The SPEAKER: Can I ask the Treasurer to return to the question, given that he is now one minute in.
Dr CHALMERS: I am responding, of course, to the question about the cost of living, and I'll come to mortgages in a minute. When it comes to the cost of living, energy prices are a big part of that. One of the reasons why we've got higher energy prices than we'd like is that we had a decade of energy crisis, and the person most responsible for that is the shadow Treasurer. So that's the energy part of the cost-of-living challenge.
When it comes to mortgages, those opposite are either dishonest or they fail to understand two basic facts. First of all, when it comes to the quotes that they are using about the Prime Minister's launch in Perth, we were referring then and we're proud to have a policy for smaller mortgages and cheaper repayments with our help-to-buy policy, something that the—
Op position members interjecting—
Dr CHALMERS: Well, that's what it's about. It's about smaller mortgages and smaller repayments. That's what the policy's about.
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.
Dr CHALMERS: What really cracks me up, about the question from the shadow Treasurer, is that the New South Wales Liberal government has just legislated a very similar scheme, for the very same reason, that this government seeks to implement a similar policy. That's the first fact that either the shadow Treasurer doesn't understand or he's not being honest about. The second one is that interest rates started going up on their watch. They started going up in May 2022. It was very clear then, just as it's clear now, that the interest rates that people are battling to pay started going up on their watch.
So if you put it all together, when it comes to the cost of living, before the government changed hands, interest rates were rising, real wages were going backwards and inflation was going up, and a big part of the reason for that was the electricity price chaos and the energy market chaos—that the shadow Treasurer should come to the dispatch box and take responsibility for.
Climate Change
Ms SITOU (Reid) (14:12): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government renewing Australia's international engagement on climate change and how has been the response?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (14:12): I thank the honourable member for her question and thank her for her leadership on climate issues. I very much enjoyed working with her on things like a community battery for her electorate and other things.
The honourable member knows we are acting domestically and we are acting in our region, and we are acting internationally to restore our nation's reputation as well. In this government, we understand that better climate policy is better foreign policy and is better economic policy as well. It's in our national interest. It's in our region, where our brothers and sisters in the Pacific are at the front line of the climate change crisis. They know how much is at stake, and we know how much is at stake as well.
For some small island developing states, climate related natural disasters have already cost them 200 per cent of the size of their economy. That's the sort of thing at stake here, including in our broader region, as a country that neighbours the world's largest archipelago, Indonesia, which has so much at stake. I very much enjoyed the working relationship I've developed with my counterpart, Arifin Tasrif, as chair of the G20 energy ministers meeting in recent months. Better international engagement is also important for our ambition for Australia to be a renewable energy powerhouse, our ambition to export renewable energy around the world, creating jobs and investment as we do so. This is a key fortnight for international engagement, with the COP convening in Egypt.
When parliament rises I'll be departing for Egypt with my assistant minister, Senator McAllister, representing Australia for the negotiations next week. I know that Australia will receive a warm welcome there. I know that, because that warm welcome has been expressed over the last 24 hours,
The outgoing president of the COP, the Rt Hon. Alok Sharma, said this overnight: 'How can I put this this diplomatically? The government of Australia is back at the front line in the fight against climate change'. I note the comments of the former US president Al Gore, who said: 'Earlier this year, the people of Australia chose to start leading the renewable energy revolution.'
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The Leader of the Nationals! The member for Groom will stop interjecting.
Mr BOWEN: They can mock—they like to mock, Mr Speaker. But the fact of the matter is that Australia is back at the international table because we know that good climate policy is good economic policy. We know that good climate policy creates jobs in our regions and investments in our regions, who have powered Australia for so long. We understand what is at stake. We are the developed country with the most to lose from unchecked climate change and natural disasters—floods, fires and cyclones. All of this is at stake. The people who have suffered from floods over recent months can expect them to get worse and more frequent. It's the same with bushfires. We are also the developed country with the most to gain from real action on climate change. That's what the Albanese government will deliver.
Waste Management and Recycling: REDcycle
Ms TINK (North Sydney) (14:15): My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Water. Australia's largest plastic-bag recycling program has collapsed, and this comes after a series of failures in the industry including stockpiling, dumping, toxic fires, poor regulation, high costs and the closure of international markets. Households are doing the responsible thing, recycling the plastics, but industry and the government are letting them down. Can the minister please outline the specific steps she will take to ensure the recycling industry delivers for Australians and our environment?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for the Environment and Water) (14:16): I want to thank the member for North Sydney for her question. I know that she and her constituents are passionately committed to increasing recycling rates, as we all are. It was very bad news yesterday when we heard that REDcycle, which was established in around 2011, has actually closed its doors. REDcycle has collected about 5.4 billion pieces of soft plastic in the time that it has been operating. Of course, if REDcycle hadn't collected that soft plastic, it would have ended up in landfill. We know that families are very keen to do their bit for recycling. I'm sure most of us do this—we collect our soft plastics, take them back down to the supermarket next time we're going to the supermarket and see them go into the REDcycle bin. And we know that when that plastic is collected by REDcycle, it's actually quite a valuable commodity. It goes into making Coles supermarket trolleys, it goes into footpaths and garden edging and a whole range of very useful products.
I was very disappointed, as the member for North Sydney was, to hear that REDcycle has closed its doors, and I have spoken to Coles and Woolworths today, and the Food and Grocery Council, to see what we'll do in the immediate future period and then in the longer term. Immediately, we see absolutely tons of soft plastics that have been stockpiled. We have to deal with that stockpile first. Longer term, we have to invest in the infrastructure that will recycle this plastic. This government are already playing a role. With environment ministers around the country, we've upped our ambition. We've given $1 million to the Australian Food and Grocery Council to work with industry to develop more sustainable uses for these plastics. We've set aside $60 million for hard-to-recycle plastics specifically. We're working across Australia to phase out single-use plastics—bags, plates, cups, stirrers, plastic cutlery—
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms PLIBERSEK: I hear those opposite interjecting. Sadly, they set a target of 70 per cent of plastics to be recycled or compostable by 2025, and guess what they achieved? Sixteen per cent, and stuck there for four years, no improvement. So you can stop with the interjecting. It would be better if you'd done your job when you had the chance! Mr Speaker, I'll tell you this: families are committed to action. This government is committed to action. It's important that industry also does its share.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Advocates and Sufferers of Silicosis
The SPEAKER (14:19): I'd like to inform the House that present in the gallery are a group of advocates and sufferers of silicosis. On behalf of the House, I offer a very warm welcome to you all, and welcome to question time.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
The SPEAKER: I give the call to the member for Bruce.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme
Mr HILL (Bruce) (14:19): My question is to the Minister for Government Services. We are halfway through the second week of public hearings of the royal commission into robodebt. What have we learned about who was responsible for the unlawful robodebt scheme?
Honourable members interj ecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Climate Change and Energy will cease interjecting. The Minister for Government Services will resume—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right! We will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Speaker, this conduct by the government on this matter risks bringing the royal commission into disrepute. The royal commission has been established to make findings of fact—that is clear from its terms of reference—and we are now seeing a series of questions which presume to do the royal commission's job for it. This is quite inappropriate, and these questions ought not to be allowed.
The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the question was out of order?
Mr Fletcher: Yes.
The SPEAKER: I'm just clarifying what your point was.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.
Mr Burke: To the point of order, I wasn't sure if he was going to raise it based on standing orders or a conflict of interest! It has been the practice for a long time in this chamber that, when a royal commission is on that has been commissioned by the government of the day, matters of evidence will be discussed in this place. The member opposite has a very short memory if he thinks this is new.
The SPEAKER: I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Fletcher: On the point of order, it is for the royal commission to make findings of fact based upon the evidence put to it. It is not for this House to do that. With the approach the government are taking, they are trespassing across ground that they ought not to be on.
The SPEAKER: This matter was raised in the House on Monday. Practice does indicate that matters before a royal commission the House can treat with some flexibility to allow for variations in the subject matter. Practice has also indicated over the years that matters before a royal commission can be discussed during question time. That question is in order. I refer the manager to pages 521 to 525 of Practice. I give the call to the Minister for Government Services.
Mr SHO RTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:22): In just under two weeks of hearings in the royal commission into robodebt, we've learned several facts. First, the previous government received departmental and external legal advice that robodebt was unlawful from its start. We've also learned that a top-tier law firm, Clayton Utz, provided legal advice to the former government that the scheme was not able to be justified, prompting internal emails noting that this particular draft view was catastrophic. We've also learned that the former director of Payments and Integrity at the Department of Social Services and his team saw the income averaging and what became robodebt as unethical from the beginning. The initial legal advice warning that this was unlawful was black and white, and that should have been the end of the proposal.
As to who was responsible for the unlawful robodebt scheme, I draw the attention of the House to a speech concerning the demarcation between ministerial responsibility and the Public Service given by the former Prime Minister on 19 August 2019 at the Institute of Public Administration Australia, outlining his key six guideposts underpinning the approach in government. The then Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, said:
… responsibility for setting policy, for making those calls and decisions lies with the elected representatives of the people …
He continued:
… at the end of the day our ministers, I, my colleagues, have got to look constituents in the eye, face the public, look them in the eye, and be responsible for those decisions.
He then shared that memorable farmyard anecdote:
When I played Rugby, my coach used to describe this difference as the bacon and eggs principle, the chicken is involved, but the pig is absolutely committed to the task.
He further explained his analogy:
That is why under our system of government it must be ministers who set that policy direction.
He added:
It's important not only to establish clear lines of accountability. It is also fundamental to ensure our democracy keeps faith with the Australian people.
We do not yet know if or when the member for Cook or the other former ministers responsible for the unlawful operation of the robodebt scheme—those ones sitting opposite—will be called to give evidence to the royal commission. But we do know this: applying the former Prime Minister's principles—the leader of the former government—they cannot simply pass the buck onto the Public Service for their almost five-year illegal, unlawful shakedown of hundreds of thousands of Australia's most vulnerable citizens. I table the former Prime Minister's speech about ministerial responsibility for government policy.
Energy
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Families will be forced to pay more this Christmas for their snacks like Kettle Chips, Cheezels, and CC's because energy costs for manufacturer Snack Brands Australia, based in your electorate, Minister, have tripled from $3 million to $9 million. Why are families being forced to pay for this Prime Minister's broken promises to cut power prices?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (14:25): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I am very aware of the issue with Snack Brands, which is in my electorate. I am aware that they were a customer of Weston, which went broke in May. I am aware they were then covered by the roller event and then were transferred to another provider who has since made further arrangements. And I'm aware of the gas prices they are being charged at the moment, so I'm fully aware of these issues. I am also aware of the issue they are having at their proposed Orchard Hills facility on the border of the electorate of Lindsay and my electorate, which the AER is involved as well.
I'm also aware of the gas prices that industry is having to pay across-the-board and that's why we are making it clear that we will act on gas prices. Because, as the representative in this House of the biggest industrial estate in the southern hemisphere, I know about the impact of these issues. That's why the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the industry minister, the resources minister and I have made it crystal clear that we will not do what the previous government did and pretend it wasn't happening and change the law to hide price rises. What we will do is be straight with the Australian people and act.
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
Mr Hamilton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Resources and the member for Groom will cease interjecting.
Gash, Mrs Joanna
The SPEAKER (14:27): I would like to advise the House we have Joanna Gash, the former member for Gilmore, in the gallery today. I extend a very warm welcome to Jo Gash.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Pensions And Benefits
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle—Deputy Speaker) (14:27): My question as to the Prime Minister. The Albanese government has fulfilled its election commitment to establish a royal commission into robodebt. How many people were hit with unlawful debt notices as part of the scheme? And what toll did robodebt have on Australians?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:27): I thank the member for Newcastle for her question and for her very strong advocacy, including on this issue. You do measure a society by how it treats its most vulnerable and robodebt was a cruel failure of this fundamental test because of trauma and fear. In the name of the Australian government, 443,000 people were falsely accused of owing the government money. Australians were hounded and harassed over debts that did not exist. At the height of the scheme, the member for Aston, who was human services minister, said:
We'll find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.
What we know is that at the very time the government knew that it was illegal and unlawful, in black and white.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Aston is warned.
Mr ALBANESE: I think about people like Tony, who lived in my electorate at the time. Tony had cancer twice in two years. The second time, he received support from Centrelink while he went through chemotherapy, once his sick leave ran out, for a period of time. He is an honest man but he was dealing with these life-changing health issues. He was in his 20s. He made a full recovery and went back to work as soon as he could, because that's the kind of fellow he is. But five or six years later, he started getting these aggressive letters accusing him of owing nearly $5,000. For Tony, it wasn't just the stress of finding the money—he'd done it so tough—it was the suggestion that had lied and taken money as if he hadn't been sick, when he had been undertaking chemotherapy and had gone through the trauma that having cancer in your 20s will bring. But that's what happens when you take humans out of human services, which is what those opposite did: human services stripped of humanity, social services without social conscience. We are, through the robodebt royal commission, trying to get to the bottom of this to make sure that it can never happen again. We do need to have answers to this. The robodebt royal commission is playing a critical role in exposing the events that led to such trauma for hundreds of thousands of Australians. We owe it to them, including those who aren't around anymore, to get to the bottom of these facts.
Energy
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Leader of the Nationals) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How many private properties will be impacted by the construction of 28,000 kilometres of new poles and wires as a result of the government's energy policy?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (14:31): It would be better if the Leader of the National Party based his questions on facts.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: Well, the premise of this question is incorrect, because there is no government policy of 28,000 kilometres. He might want to check his facts. He's referring, as I've indicated to the House before, to AEMO's Integrated Systems Plan. He's referring to the green hydrogen superpower scenario. The government is seeking to implement the step change scenario. What we're doing, as we do so, is very significantly improving community engagement and consultation, and there's money in the budget to do so. Under the previous government, this did not occur, and the communities that are represented by the members for Ballarat and Hawke are paying the price for that indolence as we speak.
Pensions And Benefits
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Canberra student Maddie received an $8,000 debt notice in 2018. She was overwhelmed by the debt and was in despair, feeling she was in trouble from the government. Why is the royal commission into robodebt important to young Australians like Maddie? Who were the ministers responsible for the operation of the robodebt scheme in 2018?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:32): Young Australians bore a disproportionate share of the unlawful robodebt scheme. Almost half, about 195,000, of the victims of the robodebt scheme were aged under 30. In fact, 79,000 were 24 or under. Some were just kids aged 17. One of these victims was Maddie. She's a great kid. She was studying international studies in 2018. As it happens, 2018 was the same year that both the member for Bradfield and the member for Wannon served as the ministers for social security.
Maddie has never met either of these gentlemen, but their paths—unfortunately for her—did cross. The government, in 2018, raised an unlawful debt of $8,000 for an alleged overpayment of youth allowance against Maddie. But Maddie never owed the money. Still, she was traumatised. I spoke to her today. She said she was scared her hopes for a career in the law were in jeopardy. As I said, I spoke to Maddie today. She has previously said, 'I was so overwhelmed by the debt, and the thought that I was in trouble with the government, that I attempted suicide.' She continued, 'I'm very grateful to have survived, but I know that other victims of robodebt were not as lucky.' Maddie spent four months in hospital. She told me that she wanted the former government—and all governments—to understand that you need to get things right before you do them, because the consequences for people's lives are real. Maddie speaks for all young victims of robodebt. Maddie, you shouldn't have to survive your government. Australians deserve and need to know why an Australian government continued to run an unlawful scheme that raised hundreds of thousands of unlawful debts against innocent Australians when they must have known it was illegal. The opposition members down the other end taunt during question time that we're not going to find what they think we're looking for. Colleagues in this House: we already know it was unlawful, it was cruel, it was stupid, it was negligent, it was wrong. It was just mean. But what we don't know is why the members who were then the ministers kept doing it for 4½ years. No smirks excuse the responsibility for not doing your job properly for Maddie and hundreds of thousands of young Australians.
National Anti-Corruption Commission
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and I refer to the Prime Minister's answer yesterday regarding the National Anti-Corruption Commission. If the Prime Minister's answer yesterday was right, why are Indigenous rangers covered by the proposed commission but not union officials exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth?
Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:35): On 21 May just gone, there was an election—an election that the Labor Party won because of the issue of integrity. That was one of the main issues people were voting on in that election.
Indigenous rangers are a fundamental part of caring for country. We on this side of the House have a commitment to double the number of Indigenous rangers and also to increase Aboriginal protected areas by 10. That is the commitment on this side of the House, not to mention justice reinvestment and not to mention the enormous amount of money we're putting into Central Australia to deal with issues that are very difficult. The point that you raise about the rangers not being covered—
The SPEAKER: The minister will pause. To the member who is on his feet, I will say that the minister is being directly relevant to the question. The minister was talking directly about the issue that the member raised. There's no point of order. I'll give the call back to the Minister for Indigenous Australians.
Ms BURNEY: And I have to say that Indigenous rangers are absolutely accountable to their community, because they come from the community that they serve. They deal with issues to do with feral animals. They deal with issues of keeping waterholes clean. They deal with issues of looking after country and water.
The SPEAKER: The minister will pause. I give the call to the member for Riverina.
Mr McCormack: I fully respect what Indigenous rangers do, for and on behalf of the nation. But the question also related to why they are covered by the proposed commission but not union officials, and she hasn't referred to that part of the question yet, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Well, the minister is referencing the question with the issue of Indigenous rangers. She can answer the question how she sees fit, and I will give her the call and ask all ministers to remain relevant to all parts of questions.
Ms BURNEY: I've completed my answer. Thank you.
Pensions and Benefits
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Expectant mother Julie from Curtin was living in a domestic violence refuge and working three jobs when her robodebt notice arrived in 2015. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to provide certainty to Australians like Julie who've been forced to live with false debts hanging over their heads because of the former government's robodebt policy?
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (14:39): I'd like to thank the member for Canberra for her question. The member for Canberra has been a vocal advocate for her constituents who have been impacted by the robodebt fiasco. Robodebt was a failed policy that caused suffering to some of the most marginalised people in our community. I would remind the House that because of this disastrous scheme from the Liberal-National parties, around 400,000 Australians had unlawful debts raised against them. It is a massive failure in public policy and was driven by ideology and by stigmatising welfare recipients. As far back as 2016 there were members of the public flagging concerns that these debts just weren't right. But successive former ministers of the Liberal-National parties—the member for Cook, the member for Aston, the member for Wannon and the member for Bradfield, to name a few—just didn't listen. Individuals felt increasingly anxious, depressed and worried because these debts kept coming and they couldn't understand them.
Some of these harms affected people significantly. As the member for Canberra mentioned, expectant mother Julie, from Curtin, was living in a domestic violence refuge and working three jobs when her robodebt notice arrived. She reported this work to Centrelink, as she was required to do, but was caught up in the robodebt web when she was told she owed $14,000 to pay back. Because of the damaging way robodebt averaged out income, this debt was grossly overestimated. The debt was just wrong, but her payments were automatically reduced without warning and the money she expected did not appear in her account. This left her in an incredibly precarious position. It meant there were times when Julie couldn't afford food or to pay bills for her daughter. She recounts regularly experiencing humiliation for having to leave groceries at the check-out after her card was declined due to unexpected insufficient funds. This was such a difficult circumstance, and just one example of the significant human cost of the Liberal Party's flawed and illegal robodebt scheme.
But our government is taking action. Not only have we established the royal commission which is now underway but we're taking action to provide certainty to those who have a robodebt review still open and still hanging over their heads. Around 197,000 reviews were commenced under the robodebt scheme but never completed. These in-flight reviews were put on hold when the Morrison government cancelled robodebt, but they've been sitting there and causing a lot of people anxiety and stress. This government is taking action; these reviews have now been closed. Enough is enough: it is time to draw a line in the sand.
Defence Materiel
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Defence. In a national survey, 60 per cent of respondents said that if we were invaded they wouldn't fight. In Europe, war drums are beating; in China, Pelosi's visit triggered mobilisation. Minister, we had in our last war, Konfrontasi, 1½ million combat rifles and now we only have 36,000 rifles. Was $4 billion spent on hundreds of drones and dozens of patrol boats which, except for a small machine gun, have no armaments whatsoever? My Kalkatungu mob held British invasion at bay for 60 years. Minister, can I give you their telephone number?
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (14:43): Can I say to the honourable member, yes, you can definitely give me their telephone number—I think that would be very useful!
I thank the honourable member for his question and, in doing so, I thank him for—dare I say it—in his earlier years his service in the CMF. Perhaps, in the same breath, I can thank the service of all of those in this House and in this parliament who have been in the defence forces. Indeed, I thank the service of the thousands of Australians who have volunteered for our regular Defence Force and for our reserves.
As the honourable member's question alludes to, we live in a very precarious world. Through most of my lifetime a tenet of strategic thought has been that if anybody meant to do us harm we would be given a 10-year warning. In 2020, the former government, rightly, in its Defence Strategic Update observed that for the first time we now live within that 10-year threat window. We are seeing the global rules based order being placed under increasing pressure, in Eastern Europe with the war in Ukraine and the appalling invasion by Russia of that country. But we're also seeing the global rules based order being placed under pressure in the Indo-Pacific. So the question is begged as to what we are going to do about that. That is the work of the Defence Strategic Review, which is being undertaken right now. I don't want to pre-empt what will be concluded there, but clearly we are going to need to think in strategic terms in the future—much more in terms of impactful projection; being able to hold our adversaries at risk at far greater distances from our shores, both in terms of greater lethality, as the member has alluded to, but also through the full spectrum of proportionate response. Exactly how we do that will be the work of the Defence Strategic Review. Clearly a capable long-range submarine is going to be really central to that, which is why we are working with our allies in the United States and the United Kingdom on developing, for Australia, the capability of having a nuclear-powered submarine.
Inherent in your question is also, I think, another really important point. While I wouldn't agree with all the assertions in your question, there is, occasioned by this, the need for a different discussion with the Australian people about the risks that we face. This is not to be done in a way which causes panic or which is alarmist, because I'm actually optimistic about our ability to keep Australia safe, our agency being able to maintain our way of life. But having a sensible, sober, clear conversation with the Australian people about the world that we face is really important and that's what the Albanese government is seeking to.
Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (14:46): My question as to the Attorney-General. Cathy, who lives in Coburg, is a scientist who was on Centrelink entitlements for three months in 2012 while working as a casual at a university. Cathy received a robodebt notice in 2017 and has spoken of her unconscionable experience. Why is the royal commission into robodebt important for working Australians like Cathy?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (14:46): I thank the member for Wills for his question. I am truly saddened to hear Cathy's story. All of us in this place have heard many stories like Cathy's. Many of our constituents all over Australia have told us about their own unconscionable experience of robodebt. The truth is that the former Liberal government's robodebt scheme was not only wrong and unethical but also against the law.
The member for Wills asked me why the robodebt royal commission is important for working Australians like his constituent Cathy. The robodebt royal commission was a key election commitment which we wasted no time in putting in place. It's important that the events which led to this cruel scheme are fully exposed, with the powers that only a royal commission has, so that those responsible are held to account, and even more importantly so that we can make sure that this never happens again.
In just the first weeks of hearings, it has been uncovered that the Department of Social Services first became aware that robodebt was potentially unlawful in 2014. But once it found favour with the former Prime Minister, the Member for Cook, it was full steam ahead. In 2016, and we've already heard this from the Prime Minister—
The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Fletcher: P ractice is very clear on this. It says that one of the circumstances in which the sub judice convention should be applied is, 'Where the proceedings are concerned with issues of fact or findings relating to the propriety of the actions of specific persons'. That is precisely what the terms of reference of the royal commission go to. The letters patent authorise the commissioner to inquire into the following matters: the establishment, design and implementation of the robodebt scheme, including who was responsible for its design, development and establishment. So the royal commission has been charged with finding facts. It is particularly surprising that the Attorney-General should be trampling all over the distinction that should properly be drawn. It leads to the obvious conclusion that this exercise is nothing but a politicised witch-hunt. The interest in finding the truth is a—
The SPEAKER: I would just caution the manager for using that language regarding the royal commission.
Mr Burke: To the point of order: there's a reason the Manager of Opposition Business turned up with just one page from Practice, rather than the whole book. Had he gone on reading, he would have had this reference:
The question as to whether the proceedings before a royal commission are sub judice is therefore treated with some flexibility to allow for variations in the subject matter, the varying degree of national interest and the degree to which proceedings might—
or might not—
be or appear to be prejudiced.
It would be extraordinary to argue that simply presenting to the parliament what has already been given as evidence before the royal commission could in any way prejudice it. We are simply dealing with evidence that is already before it.
The SPEAKER: On the point of order, I've listened carefully to both points. The Attorney-General is going through proceedings so far. I'm listening carefully to his answer and will be mindful of the matters raised, but so far his answer to the question is in order.
Mr DREY FUS: The Prime Minister has already quoted the comments of the member for Aston, former minister for human services, from 2016, but I'm going to repeat them, because they were so shameful. This is what the member for Aston said:
We'll find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.
Those comments were made after the government knew that the scheme was unlawful. It is shameful. Our government believes in the rule of law. The former government took a cowboy approach to the legality of their actions, even on something as far-reaching as robodebt, which ended up affecting around 400,000 Australians. How could this happen? Who was responsible? What advice did they seek? What advice were they given? And, most importantly, how can we make sure that this never happens again? A royal commission will answer these questions, and I have every confidence that this royal commission will.
Energy
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, at a national address on 5 April here in Canberra you promised Australian households and businesses you would cut their power bills by $275 a year. Prime Minister, have you apologised to Australians for your broken promise, one you have refused to repeat since the election?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:52): I thank the member for his question and for his ongoing interest in my speeches. I thank him very much. He referred to a speech prior to the election, I believe. He has a great deal of interest in what happened to energy prices prior to the election. On 21 May 2022, which will be a date familiar to those opposite—a day when the Australian people rejected the coalition—the gas price was $34.75 a gigajoule. During the previous term, the former government on 15 September released its much vaunted plan for a gas-fired recovery. Remember that? It was a plan that would reset the east coast gas market and deliver lower prices. That was on 15 September 2020. They said that they were going to have lower prices. On 21 May the price of gas was $34.75. They were going to decrease prices. How much do you think prices were when they made that commitment? They surely must have been substantially higher than $34.75, because they were going to reduce prices, to lower prices.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will pause for a moment, and I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Fletcher: On relevance: in question time previously you've directed a minister to be relevant to the question where the minister has strayed and begun talking about the record of the former government. That's what we've seen from the Prime Minister. He needs to come back to the question about his promise to reduce power prices by $275.
The SPEAKER: The question was about power prices and the Prime Minister's commitments, and I'm bringing him back to the question.
Mr ALBANESE: It is absolutely relevant what was happening to the price of gas prior to the election, because on 15 September 2020 gas prices weren't higher than $34.75. They were $4.20 per gigajoule. So they were $4.20 per gigajoule. They said it would result in lower prices, and on election day it was $34.75 per gigajoule. That was after their so-called gas-fired recovery which would reset lower prices. It's no wonder that the only person who has ever said, 'Great job, Angus; Well done, Angus,' is the shadow Treasurer, who was responsible for this debacle.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister's time has concluded.
Housing
Ms BYRNES (Cunningham) (14:56): My question is to the Treasurer. How does the budget help address Australia's affordable housing shortage?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:56): Thanks to the member for Cunningham for her interest in affordable housing. We are proud, on this side of the House, that the budget was able to include important policies on housing, like the Housing Australia Future Fund, like the Help To Buy scheme, which we've been talking about already in question time, and the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee as well. But the new part in the budget, on Tuesday night a couple of weeks ago, was the new Housing Accord. What the Housing Accord does is it recognises that there is a shortage of affordable rental properties in this country and that we give ourselves the best chance to deal with this challenge if we bring people together to try and solve it. What the Housing Accord—
Mr Pike interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Bowman then left the chamber.
Dr CHALMERS: does is it brings the Commonwealth together with the state and territory governments, with the industry bodies, with the super funds, with local government and with other institutional investors. And it recognises that, when you've got low vacancy rates and high rents, there is a responsibility on government to do something about it, and that's where the target comes from, from those discussions, and that's where the policy comes from.
It's been very well received in the housing sector. I pay tribute to the work of the housing minister and other colleagues who've worked so hard to make this Housing Accord a reality. The Housing Industry Association said:
Labor's first budget shows leadership to tackle Australia's housing supply and affordability challenges for all Australians.
The Master Builders Association said:
We thank the federal government for taking the first step in bringing all parties together to start tackling this crisis …
The Community Housing Industry Association said:
… as a breakthrough moment for Australia's housing affordability crisis.
… … …
This initiative is a huge stride forward
The Property Council said:
We commend the Government for making housing supply and affordability a centrepiece of this budget and for striking an agreement with the states and territories.
So I thank you industry bodies for their overwhelmingly positive reaction to our Housing Accord and to the housing policies in our budget. In particular, I thank all of the parties to the accord, as it's drafted. We've got all of the states and territories signed up from both sides of the political fence. We've got AustralianSuper, Australian Retirement Trust, HESTA, Aware Super, Cbus Super, Industry Super Australia, UniSuper, Rest Super, Colonial First State, Insignia, TelstraSuper, BlackRock, AFM Investments, the Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association and the Property Council of Australia as well.
Mr Hamilton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Groom is warned.
Dr CHALMERS: People are coming from everywhere to be part of this Housing Accord, because it gives us the best opportunity to deal with an issue in the housing market where it's too difficult for people to live near where the jobs and opportunities are being created. The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that we care enough about it to bring people together and do something about it.
Asylum Seekers
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, the ALP won the election promising to abolish TPV's, safe haven enterprise visas and the failed fast track process, but we've still heard nothing about how or when this will happen, despite 31,000 refugees being in limbo and unable to reunite with family, to access stable work and educational or to travel abroad. Minister, when will the government end the cruelty and provide permanent protection so that refugees can rebuild their lives in Australia?
Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (15:00): I thank the member for Clark for his question and for the sincere concern which lies behind it—indeed, his longstanding advocacy on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers. I acknowledge that he and many members of the crossbench have raised these issues with me in respect of this very significant commitment. I'm very proud to be a member of a government that recognises that we can be resolute in maintaining strong and secure borders whilst not abandoning our humanity. That is fundamentally important. It is who we are as a people, regardless of what members opposite might say and regardless of their record of cruelty and neglect. I'm also proud to be a member of a government that keeps its promises, unlike members opposite. This government made a commitment, that the member for Clark recognises, to transition people who came here more than a decade ago, and who are owed our protection and who are on temporary protection visas or SHEVs, to permanent visas.
Mr Young interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Longman is warned.
Mr GILES: That is the commitment we made. It's a commitment I am working towards realising together with my friend the Minister for Home Affairs. We are doing so in the manner in which this government is conducting itself: consultatively and deliberately, making sure we get this right. We will get this right by taking the time to get it right. I welcome any further discussions with the member for Clark, members of the crossbench or members opposite on how we will meet this important commitment.
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022
Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What consultation with the business community has the minister and his department engaged in as part of the development of the secure jobs, better pay legislation?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (15:02): I want to thank two Western Australians. I want to thank the member for Swan and I want to thank Senator Cash. Senator Cash, in an interview on Sky News with Kieran Gilbert, was asked specifically about consultation with business. She set this test for the government: 'If the government were listening, they would have consulted with the job creators in this country before they introduced the legislation.' That was the test. I thought, 'Let's just go back through and work out what consultation was done with business prior to the introduction of the bill.' Senator Cash and some of those opposite in the debate have said absolutely nothing. I guess it's a bit like the old thing with the Romans: absolutely nothing—except for!
There was consultation with the BCA, with ACCI, with Ai Group, with COSBOA, with Clubs Australia, with the MBA, with the NFF, with AREEA, with the ACAPMA, with the manufacturing installation association and with individual employers, such as Qantas or Team Global Express, formerly known as Toll Group.
Mr Hamilton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Groom is warned.
Mr Hamilton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Groom will leave the chamber under 94(a)
The member for Groom then left the chamber.
Mr BURKE: Consultation included alliances such as Migrant Women in Business, the Harmony Alliance: Migrant and Refugee Women for Change, the National Rural Women's Coalition, Woman with Disabilities Australia and the YWCA Canberra.
Then, for introduction, we had the committee on industrial legislation, including the Business Council of Australia, the Housing Industry Association, the National Farmers Federation, the Master Builders, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I will acknowledge that Steve Knott from AMMA was not there at that meeting, but he was invited and didn't turn up.
We then had the consultation which has occurred since the introduction of the bill, which I've spoken about publicly before, including with the BCA, Ai Group, COSBOA, ACCI and individual employers, again, including Woolworths. We then have the process that continues with the Senate inquiry. Those opposite have been critical of the Senate inquiry process, which is more thorough than what happened for the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. It's more thorough, in fact, than any legislation, and I've got the list here: their respect at work bill; their registered organisations, ensuring integrity bill; their proper use of worker benefits bill; their casual conversion bill; their pay protection bill; their four-yearly reviews and other measures; their corrupting benefits bill—the list goes on. It is the most consultative process that has happened for a decade.
Those opposite simply have to acknowledge, in every criticism they have, that what they did was less. So except for all the consultation that happened before introduction, all the consultation that's happened since introduction and all the consultation that will continue—apart from all that, absolutely nothing.
Mr Tehan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wannon will cease interjecting.
Iran: Human Rights
Mr WOLAHAN (Menzies) (15:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Iranian Australians are pleading with us to follow the lead of the United Kingdom, Canada and the EU and impose sanctions against a regime which has violated the rights of Iranian women. Beyond words of support and condemnation, what action does the government intend to take?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:05): I thank the member for Menzies for his question. I have, as well as the foreign minister, expressed my abhorrence at the actions of the Iranian regime in clamping down on the rights of woman—in particular, to wear whatever they want—after the tragic killing of Mahsa Amini. What we've seen is a clampdown on women, in particular, in Iran. As a result of that, I know that much of the diaspora here, like the diaspora around the world, have expressed their abhorrence at this action.
The Labor government will continue to work with our allies, including in multilateral forums such as the United Nations. I expect this may well be a topic that's also raised at the meetings that I'll be attending of global leaders over the coming week. I acknowledge the enormous hurt that Iranian people, but Iranian women in particular, are feeling at this very difficult time, watching this clampdown on human rights in Iran for things that we in this country take for granted. I thank the member for his question and I will certainly ensure that we liaise with him about further action that the government is considering.
We actually don't have a vast number of economic relations between Australia and Iran. One of the things we have done is make sure—and I'm sure that the Leader of the National Party would understand why we have done this—that, in any action that's taken, we're fully cognisant of the implications for Australian businesses of that. But we'll continue to speak out. We'll continue to vote in any forums in which Australia has a presence to ensure that the people of Iran—who are showing great courage in standing up for their human rights—know that Australia, as always and in a bipartisan way, is friends of all those who stand up for their individual rights, and, in this case, in particular, the rights of women.
The SPEAKER: On indulgence, I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (15:08): on indulgence—I join the coalition with the comments of the Prime Minister. I want to recognise the work of the member for Menzies and other members in this House as well who have met with members of the community here, and the outpouring of emotion is absolutely understandable. The scenes and the reporting are horrific, and the treatment of women is completely unacceptable.
As the member for Menzies has pointed out at a number of discussions on this issue, there is heartfelt sentiment across the aisle in relation to this issue. The coalition will support any actions the government takes, even if it means an economic consequence for our country. There are markets, otherwise, that we can identify, and we will work with the government to support them in decisions, because a very clear, significant, tangible message needs to be sent that this type of behaviour is abhorrent, unacceptable in any society, and completely against the values of our country.
Broadband
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (15:09): My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to boost mobile coverage and broadband for regional communities and expand connectivity on farms?
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway—Minister for Communications) (15:09): I thank the member for his question. The government understands the vital role that communications plays for those living, working in and visiting regional and rural Australia. That's why we took to the election our Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia, as well as a plan for a better NBN. Our October budget backs this by delivering on our election commitments, with $2.2 billion for regional connectivity. That's a boost of over $800 million compared to the March budget of the previous government.
Our plan provides $656 million for further rounds of the Mobile Black Spot Program, improving communications resilience—which we know is so important, given the recent and recurring natural disasters—the Regional Connectivity Program and an independent national mobile coverage audit. There are two other initiatives relevant to the member's question: $6 million to extend and enhance the Regional Tech Hub, which provides free expert advice on improving connectivity literacy, and $30 million to expand on-farm connectivity. Connectivity literacy is vital, because it informs decisions about what solutions can best extend connectivity from one part of a farm to the other. This month is the Regional Tech Hub's connectivity month, and I was delighted to launch this important initiative last week with the National Farmers Federation at the sheep farm of Jen and Jack in Gunning in New South Wales. Jen is actually the manager of the Regional Tech Hub and she described what a game changer connectivity is. Like many farms, they have mobile coverage at the farmhouse, but it doesn't reach the shearing shed or all corners of the property.
The knowledge of, and the capacity to deploy, technology to extend and make use of that better coverage can make a real difference. Importantly, we know that investment in farming connectivity solutions can realise significant productivity gains. It has been estimated that as much as a $20 billion increase in the gross value of agricultural production could be achieved by the uptake of advanced farming technologies. Improving connectivity will enable agriculture businesses to use digital technologies that increase productivity and efficiency and importantly, improve safety. That's what the delivery of our election commitments for the Regional Tech Hub and improving on-farm connectivity is all about.
This government is committed to growing the economy and supporting regional communities by investing in such productivity-enhancing digital infrastructure, and we have delivered substantially increased funding in our budget for this very purpose. This is in addition to the expansion of full fibre access to the NBN for a further 1.5 million Australian homes and businesses—with, importantly, 660,000 of these upgrades in regional and rural Australia.
National Anti-Corruption Commission
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (15:12): My question is to the Prime Minister and I refer to the Prime Minister's answer in question time yesterday. If union officials exercising powers under a law of the Commonwealth are not covered by the National Anti-Corruption Commission because they're covered by other integrity bodies—the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission—why are these bodies not included in the list of 22 Commonwealth integrity agencies in section 15 of the bill?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:13): Union officials, if they act corruptly in engagement with government agencies, are treated like any other third party, and are covered.
Employment
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (15:13): My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training: How is the Albanese Labor government working with states and territories to help tackle the skills shortages crisis the government inherited?
Mr O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Skills and Training) (15:14): I'd like to thank the member for McEwen for his question. As a tradie, he knows how important it is to deliver skills to the economy.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr O'CONNOR: He worked on the tools before he came to this place. He understands how important it is to deliver the skills for businesses and to make sure that workers in this country have the skills that are in demand. It's true to say that the only way we will genuinely deal with some of these really strong challenges we have with respect to acute labour shortages is by working in partnership with industry, employers and unions—but also, in terms of the VET sector, delivering through TAFE and other training providers, we need to make sure we're working closely with the states and territories. That's why we started, of course, by agreeing upon 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places for 2023. That was the first announcement at the Jobs and Skills Summit, after the Prime Minister met with premiers and chief ministers and signed that deal. That was a critical part of delivering the training that our labour market, our economy and our businesses need.
But we need to continue to do more. Wherever you look across the labour market, across the economy, we have skills shortages. The traditional trades, occupations, professions, aged care—it doesn't matter where you look; we have to deal with these issues. That's why my colleagues the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration are both working on restoring skilled migration pathways. That's why we're looking to make sure we provide access to people who've been locked out of the labour market. And that's why we need to continue to invest in skills and training by delivering a VET sector that's fit for purpose.
It's true to say there was meant to be a national skills agreement for five years that should have commenced on 1 July this year, but those opposite failed to reach agreement with state and territory governments.
Ms Ley interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Mr O'CONNOR: In fact, they didn't reach agreement with any one of the eight other governments when it was put to them. You would have thought that, when you've got a few billion dollars to possibly provide to state and territory governments, you'd be able to get one signature out of eight on a piece of paper. But, no, not one state or territory government supported the Commonwealth before the election in setting up the national skills agreement. But we will make sure that we work closely with those governments and deliver a national skills agreement starting from 1 January 2024. We'll make sure that we reform the VET sector so it's fit for purpose—
Ms Ley interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!
Mr O'CONNOR: delivering the skills that our labour market needs, delivering the workers that are needed by businesses—in fact, skills that businesses are crying out for. We will deliver that because, whether you listened to the Treasurer today on the housing policy or the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in relation to industrial relations, we work collaboratively, we work together with industry, state and territory governments and others.
Tasmania: Energy
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (15:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. On 12 April this year the Prime Minister promised Tasmanian families that his government would 'reduce household prices by $275'. Will the Prime Minister finally admit to Tasmanian families that he has broken his word to them and his only remaining promise on power bills is the 56 per cent increase in electricity prices which appears in the budget?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:17): I thank the member for his question, which goes to Tasmania. I'm going to quote someone who said:
The issue here, that New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia are dealing with now—
apparently he left off Tassie—
has been the ideological war when it comes to climate change and energy policy in this country, and that has led to a lack of private sector investment.
That was from that well-known socialist Dominic Perrottet, the New South Wales Liberal Premier.
Ms Ley interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is on a warning.
Mr ALBANESE: I must say that, of all the prime ministers Premier Perrottet has dealt with, I'm his favourite. He tells me that. But you don't have to just look at the public sector across the spectrum; you can look at comments on 8 November from Kevin Gallagher, chief executive of Santos. This is what he had to say on 8 November:
There are conversations of fear that I never expected to see in my lifetime and in Australia they are the consequence of more than a decade of energy policy failure that quite frankly I've been warning about for many years.
Mr Thompson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert is on a warning.
Mr ALBANESE: That was the chief executive of Santos.
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: Then he said, 'They're also the consequence of domestic climate wars …'
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals is warned.
Mr ALBANESE: Kerry Schott, the person hand-picked to be head of energy security by those opposite said:
Just have a think about the way electricity gets dispatched—they get dispatched on the basis of who's the cheapest, and the cheapest is wind and solar. They have fuel costs that are zero. So their marginal cost is effectively zero.
But I'm asked also about Tasmania, and I suggest to the honourable member that he give Jeremy a call—Jeremy Rockliff, just up the road there. He might be in your seat; I think he represents your seat, so you share a seat. This is what the Tasmanian Premier and the member for Braddon had to say. He said this:
Renewable energy is absolutely 100 per cent in Tasmania's DNA … Reliable, affordable and clean energy that will unlock billions of dollars of investment over the course of the next decades … This is one of the most exciting announcements for decades when it comes to Commonwealth and State Government investing together in future energy security, unlocking that energy for attracting investment right here in Tasmania.
I say to this member for Braddon: listen to the other member for Braddon, who stood at a press conference—this is a Liberal Premier. That's what he had to say. (Time expired)
Disability Services: The Field
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (15:21): My question is to the Prime Minister. Earlier today you attended the launch of the new website, The Field. How will this resource support Australians living with a disability?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:21): I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. Earlier today myself, Minister Shorten and Minister Rishworth were honoured to attend the launch of The Field with the Australian of the Year, Dylan Alcott. Dylan Alcott is a remarkable Australian, and we should all be proud, as is he, of the achievement that he has made as an advocate for people with disabilities. What The Field is about is matching up people with disability with employers, showing the skills that they have to offer the employment market and making sure that there's a one-stop shop so that we can encourage the more than 500,000 Australians with a disability who want to work. What Dylan Alcott said today at the event here in Parliament House was that not everyone can work but that those who do want to work should be given the support to do so. And that should be done in a way that not just helps them to contribute fully to society but also will help our economy.
Now, at a time of skills shortages and relatively low unemployment, there's no better time for employers to log on and participate in this process, just as people with disabilities are doing. Connecting people with career opportunities, as The Field does, is good for the individual, but it's also very good for business. One of the things that struck me about the Jobs and Skills Summit was that some of the most powerful moments were of people with disability speaking about their experiences in the labour market and about how, by being given an opportunity to contribute, they were lifting up their own self-status and they were lifting up their income, but they were also helping businesses to grow.
There are a range of sites. There's a very powerful video, which I encourage people to have a look at as well, of a person with a disability—a young woman working in hospitality in a remarkable way.
Dylan Alcott spoke powerfully at the Jobs and Skills Summit, but he also, I think, brought a great deal of grace and honour to this Parliament House when he attended here today. I do encourage employers to participate. I congratulate Dylan Alcott for his ongoing leadership. It was a great privilege to be there today, and I can think of no better note to finish question time on today than to wish him and all those who participated in The Field well.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Budget
The SPEAKER (15:24): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brisbane proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government's Budget to immediately address the cost of living crisis and rising inequality.
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 BATES (Brisbane) (15:24): It is a privilege to represent my electorate of Brisbane. It extends from the suburbs of Paddington in the west, through the CBD, New Farm and Lutwyche, and out to Hamilton in the east. We are a diverse electorate that large populations of people from across the world have decided to call home. I'm proud of our large multicultural population and our huge diversity of families, young professionals and students. We are a young electorate, with the second-largest population of under-35s of any electorate in Australia.
All of us across the Brisbane electorate hear a lot about a cost-of-living crisis, and none of us have to look too far to see the impacts of it. We talk to our friends, our families and our communities, and it is hard to deny the simple fact that the economy is just not working for everyone. Whether it's petrol prices, rent rises, mortgage repayment hikes or spending more on food and essentials, everyone is feeling the pinch. Stories are emerging of people seeing their rents increased by 60 per cent. In the building I call home, my neighbours have experienced hikes of $280 per week for their rent. I've been told stories of community members seeing increases of as much as $400 per week. People are so afraid of their leases expiring, because of the almost guaranteed exorbitant increases to their rents which will either force them to try and find a home in an already tight housing market or, in some cases, force them into homelessness. We've had Brisbane locals come to us for help in the most dire of situations because they felt like they had nowhere else to turn. These are people who have been living in their carports, couch surfing or even living in their cars with their service animals.
This budget tells my home community of Brisbane that the government knows we are in a cost-of-living crisis but that my electorate just has to wait. But this budget does not tell everyone they have to wait, because the fossil fuel companies receiving $40 billion in subsidies don't have to wait; the one in three large companies who don't pay any tax don't have to wait; and the government MPs giving themselves a $9,000-a-year tax cut don't have to wait. This budget tells us that the needs of gas companies to rake in enormous and excessive profits are more important than the needs of struggling families. That is why this matter is of such public importance.
If we are to address the cost-of-living crisis, we must change the rules of the game that led us here. We must understand that the same thinking that got us into this mess is not going to get us out. We need to create an economy and a society that put people ahead of profit. What is going to get us out of this cost-of-living crisis is investing in essential public services and making them universally accessible. Getting dental into Medicare, making child care universal, wiping student debt and investing in 100-per-cent publicly owned renewable energy and green jobs—these are all policies that would dramatically and tangibly improve people's lives, and that is what government should be about.
Make no mistake: the reason we don't have these services is because the government would rather give handouts to the same companies that contributed to the climate-change-induced floods that devastated my electorate. We don't have these services because the government is committed to giving $254 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country, with 65 per cent of that money going to the top one per cent of earners. This budget's priorities are wrong. If we are to truly address the cost-of-living crisis and the structural inequalities that we face in this country, we need bold action. Bandaid solutions and tinkering around the edges are not going to cut it. People in our communities will continue to hurt until governments start writing budgets that finally value people over profits.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) (15:28): It is certainly true that in Australia we have a strong egalitarian ethos. Ours is a country where many people would prefer to sit in the front seat of a taxi, where we prefer to use the word 'mate' rather than 'sir', where we don't have private areas on the beaches and where most people don't stand up when the Prime Minister enters the room. Yet, over recent generations, we've seen a steady rise in inequality. As Thomas Piketty outlined in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, we've seen, across the advanced world, an increase in the share of the top one per cent of income earners. We've seen an increase in the share of the top 0.1 per cent of income earners, tripling since the early 1980s. We have seen CEO pay increase far faster than an average worker's pay. Work by Tomas Kennedy and Peter Siminski asks the pertinent question: for Australians born in successive generations, what's the chance that they earned more than their parents? For Australians born in the 1950s, 84 per cent earned more than their parents. For Australians born in the 1980s just 68 per cent earned more than their parents.
We've seen a fanning out of real wages since 1975. Since 1975, wages at the 10th percentile have grown in real terms by 33 per cent. Wages at the median have grown by 55 per cent. But wages at the 90th percentile have grown by 81 per cent. That is, earnings are growing nearly three times as fast for the highest paid as for the lowest paid. Work done by Treasury, which I highlighted in a recent Gruen lecture, shows that market concentration has risen. The biggest firms have a larger slice of the pie than they did in decades past. Mark-ups have increased—the gap between what firms charge and their costs has grown. Under the former governments we saw the JobKeeper scheme funnel some $20 billion of taxpayer money to firms with rising revenues, some of which used that taxpayer money to pay executive bonuses.
So the issue of inequality is a real one. It is an issue that matters deeply to those of us on this side of the House. My Labor colleagues and I got into politics because we care deeply about inequality. Indeed, it's one of the classic divides between left and right. But it's pretty ironic that the member who moved this MPI has chosen to do so on a day on which the House is debating the secure jobs, better pay bill—a bill brought to this House by a government that won a mandate at the last election to get real wages going again, to narrow the gender pay gap and to provide more flexibility for workers who want to combine caring duties with employment.
The very first act of the Albanese Labor cabinet was to approve a submission to Fair Work Australia which saw the minimum wage increased by 5.2 per cent. We made a submission to Fair Work Australia that saw aged-care workers win a 15 per cent pay rise. We on this side of the House care deeply about the fact that under the coalition real wages fell. That's right: in a decade real wages were lower at the end of the coalition's time in office than they were at the start. That is an indictment on the former government.
Inequality also manifests itself in home ownership. Back in 1991, among baby boomers aged 25 to 39 we saw a reasonable share owning their own homes outright. Among millennials of the same age in the most recent census, the chance that they would own their own home outright had fallen by two thirds. Housing is, to a large extent, a supply challenge, which is why we went to the last election announcing our Housing Australia Future Fund, which would build some 30,000 social and affordable homes. It's why the Treasurer stood at this dispatch box on budget night, pledging a National Housing Accord which would see us work with the states, territories and private sector to build some one million homes.
When I'm out with my street stalls, one of the most common issues that constituents will come to me about is housing and their inability to break into the housing market. Yet if you're in Victoria then you'll be well aware of the Greens allying with their coalition colleagues in 2017 to overturn Labor's plans to rebuild public housing in Ashburton. Victorians would be aware, too, of the Greens-dominated council, the City of Yarra, rejecting last year a state government proposal for social housing around the Collingwood Town Hall. It would have seen 200 units constructed, 100 of them for social housing, but it was rejected because they were uncomfortable with the involvement of a commercial property developer. Then, just weeks ago, we saw the Greens threatening to block the Albanese government's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund in the Senate. If they had, they would have blocked 30,000 new properties for vulnerable Australians over the next five years. So you see from the Greens the approach which was so beautifully epitomised in the latest issue of the Wharf Revue, which I highly recommend to those watching the MPI today: all care and no responsibility.
From the latest budget, we've got measures being brought down by this government to reduce the cost of medicines, reducing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme maximum co-pay to $30. That's important because we know it is lower income Australians who are more likely to use the healthcare system. If the members on the crossbench want to talk about the budget and inequality, they just need to look at those important reforms to reduce the cost of medicines.
And then there's the important investment in education. In the latest budget, we announced some 20,000 additional university places targeted at students from low-SES backgrounds, Indigenous Australians, those who are first in their family and those from regional Australia. We're prioritising those groups because we recognise the transformative power of education. Indeed, it is the life story for so many of my Labor colleagues. We've also announced hundreds of thousands of fee-free TAFE places because we know it's crucial to reducing earnings inequality by increasing the educational opportunities for Australians. Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz describe inequality as 'a race between education and technology'. At a time when technology is advancing, it's absolutely vital to have a government that is investing in our education system, that is expanding opportunities through vocational education and universities in order to ensure that Australians have a shot in the labour market.
Gender equity too was at the heart of our budget. We prioritised cheaper child care, a reform that is absolutely critical to closing the gender pay gap. We have been prioritising the implementation of the Respect@Work reforms, recognising, as my former colleague Deborah Cobb-Clark has noted, the way in which sexual harassment in the workplace can hold women back from advancement and widen the gender pay gap. And we're investing in women's safety and women's economic security, recognising the critical importance for Australian workplaces and for all Australians, men or women, to have safer workplaces.
The latest budget was brought down in the teeth of some of the highest levels of inflation we had seen, and a hallmark of the budget was the way in which it dovetailed with the work of the Reserve Bank. An unfunded cash splash would have merely driven up interest rates, hurting the very people we care most about and making more entrenched the problem of inflation and the challenge the Reserve Bank is fighting right now. And yet, extraordinarily, the member who moved this MPI is part of a party that is working to scrap Reserve Bank independence. As independent scholars have noted, if the Greens' policy proposal had its way, it would lead to capital flight from Australia. It would be enormously damaging for the macroeconomy.
We on this side of the House recognise the importance of working with the Reserve Bank. We are passionate about reducing inequality and we are proud, pro-growth progressives.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:39): Inflation is soaring, the cost of living is rising and power bills are set to spike. Meanwhile, coal and gas corporations are making massive profits while one in four Australians are struggling to make ends meet. I was excited to join my Victorian Greens colleagues last week to call on the government to freeze electricity bills at precrisis levels for two years. This vital cost-of-living relief would be funded by making these greedy energy companies—who are making massive profits—pay. This would save an average household over $750.
In the Victorian state electorates of Melbourne and Richmond, which make up large parts of my federal electorate of Melbourne, hundreds of volunteers have been out having conversations with people in the lead-up, and we're hearing one thing clearly: people are doing it tough. We've heard from parents who are worried about how they'll afford their energy bills while putting food on the table for their kids. We've spoken to young people unable to afford a place to rent and terrified of getting kicked out of their home by asking for basic rights from their landlords. Over half the people in Melbourne and Richmond are renters. Wages are flatlining, but rents are rising at record rates. Renters need better rights. We need to freeze rents, build more affordable homes and ban political donations from big property developers. More Greens in the Victorian parliament will kick the Liberals out and hold Labor to account and push them to deliver the urgent cost-of-living relief that is needed, and to do that ahead of corporate profiteering. It is time to freeze rents and freeze power bills, so people can start to make ends meet.
To tackle inequality, we're going to have to take on some of the big vested interests in the country that seem to have this government in their pockets. Because while there was nothing in this budget about freezing rents and while there was nothing to deliver immediate relief for people dealing with soaring energy prices, what this government did find its way to include in the budget was at least $40 billion of subsidies to the very same coal and gas corporations that are driving the climate crisis and that are contributing to the energy crisis that we're seeing.
If you were to do one thing in your budget to tackle inequality, it wouldn't be to give over a quarter of a trillion dollars of public money to politicians and billionaires and the wealthiest people in this country—to give them a $9,000 a year tax cut per year, every year, forever. This budget had the potential to deliver immediate cost-of-living relief in a lasting way to people right across this country, such as by getting dental into Medicare and dealing with the fact that the average household spends about $1,000 every year going to the dentist, and some just don't go at all because they can't afford it. They could make child care free for everyone and deal with those massive costs that people are facing. We could wipe student debt. We could build affordable homes. These are the things that are on the table if you don't give a quarter of a trillion dollars of public money to Clive Palmer and billionaires and politicians for tax cuts that, frankly, they don't need. That is why this budget did not put in place free dental as part of Medicare, free child care to people or wipe student debt. It's because the government prioritised giving tax cuts to politicians and billionaires instead and handed out $40 billion in subsidies to the very corporations that are driving the climate crisis.
I heard the minister talk about their housing plan. Under their housing plan, the waiting list for social housing is going to be longer at the end than it was at the beginning. They say, 'We're going to build a million houses over the next five years.' Well about 975,000—close to a million—were built in the last five years and look at the situation we're in at the moment. We need government to step in and help to freeze rents. We need government to step in and build public housing that people who are doing it tough can move into. And it's got to be affordable housing. Contracting it all out, as the government is doing, to the property developers and just hoping that they might do something that is affordable is not an answer. People need relief from rent rises now. People need a rent freeze now. We need to do something about electricity bills now.
The Greens have a costed plan to freeze rents for two years and make the big corporations who are engaging in wartime profiteering from the energy crisis pay for it. That way, we can deal with the cost of living crisis while also making big corporations pay their fair share.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (15:44): If only there were quick fixes. If only it was easy to just snap your fingers, change a circumstance that's been developing over many years and somehow magically it would all be fixed. But we don't live in fairyland on this side of the House. We deal with the realities, which are complex. I know it's lovely to make them sound simple and easy, and if only it were that way. I have kids who are in their late 20s and early 30s who are going through exactly the sorts of challenges that have been described. On this side we absolutely understand it. Within our families, we're living it. Our constituents are certainly experiencing the challenges. As someone who has sat in this chamber for about six years now and seen inaction on that side, it's been frustrating to see where we have got to as a parliament and as a country with those on the other side in charge.
I understand the desire for it all to happen yesterday. We would love that too, but, sadly, we've been in government only since May, In that time, we have initiated extraordinary measures to turn around this giant ship that is our government. Some things are going to happen in the next couple of months which I know will make a really tangible difference, and that's what I want to take you through. As much as I admire the passion and the commitment for getting things done, I think it suggests that we don't have the same passion and commitment, and that's just wrong. On this side, we are totally driven to reduce inequality, to create opportunities for people and to give not just my kids but their kids and their kids' kids a better place to be. I have to say that I think there are probably some on the opposition side as well as on the crossbenches who think that. We just know they've got it wrong for the last decade, and our challenge, which we fully take responsibility for, is to get it right.
Think about the things that members in this chamber have witnessed just since May and even in the last couple of weeks—for a start, action to get wages up. There are people whose wages are rising when there was no prospect of it a year ago or even eight months ago. So let's remember what some of those measures are. A minimum wage increase in line with inflation for low-paid workers is dollars in people's pockets. It's dollars that they get to spend to eat better and to be able to pay their rent. It doesn't mean, of course, that suddenly things are perfect, but that's why one of the first actions we took was to support wage increases. That minimum pay rise of $40 a week for full-time workers benefits around 2.7 million workers.
Let's think about the support we gave for an increase in the salaries of aged-care workers. It's hasn't been done in this place in the last decade. None of the three previous governments had written anything to the Fair Work Commission to support pay increases. These are the things that make a difference and will continue to make a difference, as the Fair Work Commission works through that aged-care process. Let's think about the legislation that this chamber has been talking about today a lot of which, I have to say, is about women. It's about pay and inequality but it's also about gender and inequality. That legislation contains provisions that can bring about some of the most fundamental changes in making sure that the work of women is no longer undervalued. There are women and men who work in the caring professions, but those professions are largely feminised. These are the things that actually change the country, not just with a sugar hit and not just this instant but for the current generation and for future generations.
We need the support of the crossbenches to make these things happen. You and we can work collaboratively on this, and that will be the best way forward for this country—not to be constantly saying, 'It's all or nothing.' This is about collaboration. Collaborating across the board is how we're going to turn Australia around.
Ms LE (Fowler) (15:49): I stand here representing the people of Fowler where the average weekly wage is 20 per cent lower than the rest of Australia. We are a low socioeconomic community, but what does that really mean? It means that many people in my electorate of Fowler are on low incomes. They work in factories and run their small family businesses. Many of them have come to this country from migrant and refugee backgrounds, like mine, to create a better life for their families, with a dream of owning a home, sending their kids to a good school and work hard to provide for their future.
This government is making life more difficult by its refusal to extend the excise fuel duty to enable families in south-west Sydney to drive long distances to work or to take their kids to school or elderly parents to the doctor. Extending the fuel levy would not have added to inflation. Our families are now seeing a rise in petrol prices and will bear the brunt of this just before Christmas. The government is being stubborn in not splitting the fair work legislation amendment bill before us—for wage rises to take effect as soon as possible that would benefit low-wage workers, such as those in retail work, aged care, teaching and child care, and scrapping the low- and middle-income tax offset which would have benefited all Australians earning $120,000 or less.
The cost of living in my community of Fowler and in Australia overall has been front and centre for me since my election to this House. I am concerned for the health and wellbeing of the people who live in my area, who are trying to cope with so many increasing costs. They're paying more for fuel and interest rates are going up, as is their weekly grocery bill.
I'm worried about people like 71-year-old Katalin, from St Johns Park, who called my office this week. She told us how she can barely manage to keep herself going on the $926 a fortnight she earns as a pensioner, which has to stretch to pay for house insurance, rates, water, electricity, gas, green slip and telephone. It was heartbreaking to hear that she truly believes this government has mader life harder than it was when she raised two children as a single mother. It's not the first call we have had from a pensioner worried about how they will survive the coming months and the next year, with prices on the rise.
For us here in Australia and especially for the families in my electorate of Fowler, the cost-of-living crisis is hitting hard. Just this past week, the Treasury warned of a deterioration in the global outlook, and they said it is 'becoming probable that major developed economies will soon experience recessions'. According to NAB's consumer sentiment survey, consumers should expect to spend an extra $170 a week on essential costs, like groceries, fuel and bills, in the lead-up to Christmas.
I feel compelled to bring up the current state of the energy market. I'm worried about the mere thought of coping with a 20 to 50 per cent energy bill rise that will affect the mental health and stability of families who live in my electorate. We're stuck in a cycle that delivers excessively high profits for some companies at the expense of everyday working-class families, not to mention the impact of energy costs on some 18,000-plus small businesses in the area.
A rise in energy prices of 50 per cent could see many of our local small operators having to close their doors, because they simply will not be able to cope with another increase in operating expenses. These are the people I am here to represent, and our government must take responsibility and action when it comes to taking care of all Australians. We need immediate relief and a transition plan for renewable energy that will not hit our families in low-socioeconomic areas so hard.
Energy affordability affects us all, but for some people it means the difference between putting food on the table and shoes on their children' feet or spending a night at home in the dark. Ordinary working families, small business and the elderly should not be made to suffer while energy companies reap excessive profits. The government have a number of options in front of them right now. They could introduce a windfall profits tax on the energy companies or they could re-establish agreements that withhold local supplies of gas. The government needs to take care of this nation and provide affordability in cost of living now.
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (15:53): Can I start off by saying that everything we have done in this budget addresses cost-of-living pressures, and since coming to this office that's been the focus of this government. Even the choices that we're being criticised for by those on the other side have been put into place in an effort to take off pressures from the cost of living. One of our first acts as a government, in this place, was to put a submission to the Fair Work Commission that gave our lowest-paid Australians, the people that earn the least money of everyone, a $40 increase. That's putting money in their pockets.
We have come up with a raft of measures in this budget—for example, cheaper medicines, which save money for people who are on regular medication. As we heard earlier, we've reduced the co-payment to $30, taking up to $20, $30 and $40, in some cases, off medicines. Cheaper medicines mean that people have more money in their pockets and, at the same time, are not having to make the choice of whether to buy medicines or to pay for their food.
Cheaper child care is a big part of this budget in terms of tackling the cost of living. It enables people to go to work, especially in the feminised industries, by ensuring that they can have the correct child care that they require and are able to contribute to the economy, which puts more money in their pockets again. These are all measures that this government has taken to ensure that the cost-of-living pressures are lightened for families and people. Aged-care workers will get a 15 per cent pay increase. These are the people that look after our elderly loved ones. They get very, very low wages—as everyone knows in this place—yet do very important work. A 15 per cent increase in their pay is significant to assist with the cost of living.
Then we have the longer structural pieces in place in this budget—for example, building 30,000 affordable homes for people who can least afford to buy a home or to rent a home. Those 30,000 homes will mean an increase in building, construction jobs et cetera, which then helps the economy as well, and, of course, nearly a million homes in the near future will ease the housing pressures that we see in this country. Other long-term measures in this budget are 20,000 university places targeted at low socioeconomic status students and 100,000 fee-free TAFE places for people who couldn't afford to go to TAFE but need those skills to get a job or to get a better-paying job. These are important measures.
Nothing could be further from the truth than that this government's budget didn't address the cost of living; it has been at the forefront and the centre of this budget. I know many Australians are hurting. It's not to say that Australians aren't doing it tough; they are. We've seen the incompetency of the opposition when they were in government for nine years, not acting on the increase of wages to keep up with the cost of living, which is really the part that's hurting Australians. I know that this side of politics—this government—is doing everything it can to ensure that wages increase in line with the CPI to ensure that people have a decent wage to be able to pay their rent, to be able to buy their food and to be able to pay their school fees and all other costs that are required to run a household. That is important; it was at the centre of this budget. But in such times, when it is tough, with a war going on in the Ukraine and gas prices going through the roof, the worst thing we could do is make life harder for people. That's why the cost-of-living relief that we have provided in this budget takes this into account, and it is still substantial relief, in the order of about $7½ billion. It's timed and designed in such a way as to not add to the inflationary pressure that already exists in this country. That's really important—to do it in a methodical, measured way that doesn't put on added pressure into the future—to ensure that we can out of the current international situation that's taking place.
One of the fundamental policies of this budget was to increase wages, as I said, and job security. We wasted no time in arguing with the Fair Work Commission for an increase in pay for the minimum wage. This couldn't come at a more important time, and I'm proud to be part of this budget. (Time expired)
Ms WATSON-BROWN (Ryan) (15:58): I know a lot of everyday people really hate it when they hear politicians talk about the cost of living. There's so much empty rhetoric, so much pantomime politicking, so many crocodile tears, so many words, so little action, so many excuses and so little responsibility taken. People know the government could do something, and people know they won't. Meanwhile, the cost-of-living crisis goes from bad to worse.
Here are some facts. A recent ANU study found that one in four Australians are finding it hard or very hard to make ends meet at the moment. It's sobering. The number of people using buy-now pay-later schemes is now at 5.9 million. One in seven of these—over 840,000 people—are now using this on practically a fortnightly basis. That's 20 or more short-term loans a year. More and more people are getting trapped in a debt spiral.
A few weeks ago, NAB's consumer sentiment survey found that the average Australian expects to be paying an extra $2,000 before Christmas because of the rising cost of everything. That's fine if you're well-off, but what sacrifices will that mean if you're on a middle or low income? What presents can you now not buy for your kids? What holiday outing are you now going to have to cancel? And, at the lower end of income, what meals are you going to start skipping?
Inflation is starting to bite, but it's not inevitable that people have the suffer through this. The Labor government and the RBA are pursuing a strategy here with the intentional effect of making more people's lives harder. That's how they intend to solve inflation—hold back on social spending and push up interest rates. Everyday people will struggle to buy as much, leading to a drop-off in economic activity. Businesses will contract and lay off workers, who will then be forced to accept worse wages because there's a growing pool of unemployed to compete for their jobs. This is then supposed to lead to a drop in inflation. This punishes everyday people for the sin of living their lives and makes them bear the cost of fixing a problem they did not create. Labor say they want to get wages moving, but the broader policies being pursued by both the RBA and the Labor government in fact suggest they want to get them moving downward.
And yet, despite what some commentators say, inflation is in no way being caused by wages. Earlier this year, the Australia Institute found that a full 60 per cent of inflation was driven by corporate profits, which in a number of sectors are at record levels. UK economist James Meadway says the other real drivers are: the war in Ukraine, which driving up energy and other basic commodities prices; floods and other weather events ruining crops; and supply chain issues from ongoing COVID disruptions, particularly in China. So what is pushing up interest rates and holding back on government support supposed to do other than make people's lives harder?
Another great economist—in fact, a constituent of mine in Ryan—John Quiggin has pointed out that if Labor wants to use the excuse of inflation for not giving everyday people the relief they need then why does this not apply to the stage 3 tax cuts? Surely, $9,000 tax cuts for the rich is precisely the kind of cash splash that the Prime Minister has said he wants to avoid. I think there's a big double standard here. When it's money for the rich, or for fossil fuel corporations, there's plenty of money to be splashed. But when it comes to cost-of-living relief the government counts its pennies and blames inflation.
What's the alternative? The government could scrap the stage 3 tax cuts and put that one-quarter-of-a-trillion-dollar cash splash for the rich into things that will actually help people deal with the cost of living—like putting dental and mental health into Medicare, universal free child care, raising the pension, and income support. The RBA could freeze interest rates and the government could cap rents and build the public homes we actually need. Also, an urgent windfall tax on the giant gas corporations could be used to cap energy prices, which the Treasury yesterday agreed with.
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (16:03): I thank the member for Brisbane for bringing this motion today. I welcome the opportunity to talk about all the ways that this government is cleaning up the mess the former Liberal government made. It is perhaps also a good reminder, for the members of the Greens speaking today, of how we got here. The spiralling cost of living, the rising inequality, the state of our economy—they all lie squarely at the feet of the former Liberal-National government. If the Greens want to see what it really means to do nothing to address these issues, they need look no further than the nine years before the last election. In fact, the former government made this problem worse at every turn. If, instead, the Greens want to see what responsible government looks like, they should really pay attention to what has happened over the last five or six months. The Albanese government has hit the ground running. We have done everything possible to immediately address cost of living and rising inequality.
I'll happily provide a few examples of just how we are doing that. In December 2021 the former government cut the ability for local psychiatrists in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales south coast to deliver bulk-billed video telehealth consultations, and it was not just in my electorate but across regional and rural Australia. This had huge ramifications for people in our community. We have had years of drought, bushfires, so many floods, and a global pandemic. But the former Morrison government decided it would be a good idea to make it more difficult for people living in regional Australia to access a psychiatrist. One local person who lives with bipolar told me how they could no longer afford access to prescriptions for their medication. It was simply awful. But we have gotten to work fixing this problem.
I was proud to announce with the Minister for Health and the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health that from 1 November local people could once again access these bulk-billed video telehealth psychiatry consultations thanks to the Albanese Labor government. We restored the Liberals' cuts to this vital mental health support and made it affordable and accessible once more. Days after the announcement, Sharon wrote to me to say: 'Thank you, thank you, thank you for your work in helping to reinstate the mental health rebate for telehealth psychiatric sessions. I have been in a very dark place and this gives me hope.' That is the difference this government is making in local people's lives—helping those who need it most. That's what we're doing.
There are so many ways that the Albanese government is addressing cost of living and attempting to combat the inequality that the former government created. We're strengthening Medicare, establishing Medicare urgent care clinics across the country, including in Batemans Bay, to take pressure off our hospital system. In a community like ours on the south coast, health costs can quickly skyrocket. We've got an ageing population. We've got a health system struggling to cope after years of neglect. So we've made medicines 29 per cent cheaper, saving someone who is taking one medication a month as much $150 a year. We've also given 44,000 more older Australians access to the Commonwealth seniors health card, meaning that they will now pay no more than $4.70 a week for their medicines. This will make a real difference.
Another one of our top priorities is delivering the largest pay rise for pensioners in more than 12 years. Thanks to the Albanese government, the service pension, the age pension, the disability support pension and the carer payment have all risen by $38.90 a fortnight for singles and $58.80 a for couples. We've also increased the JobSeeker payment, the parenting payment, the war widow and widower pension—I could go on. We are helping the most vulnerable in our community with the cost of living, and it was a change we made in just a few months of government. When the Liberals spent almost a decade watching costs for pensioners go up and up, watching health costs go up, watching our aged-care system fall apart and watching it get harder to see a GP, harder to find a house you can afford and harder to get by, they kept wages deliberately low and they turned their back on regional communities like mine. This government is repairing that damage as quickly as we can. We take that responsibility seriously, and I will keep working every single day to make sure local people in my electorate get the support they need when they need it.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (16:08): The cost of living is much more than a three-word slogan for many Tasmanians, because, on so many levels, Tasmanians are relatively disadvantaged compared with Australians from the mainland states. So any increase in cost of living has a disproportionate impact on people in my state. To illustrate the disadvantage, let's start with weekly earnings. In Tasmania average weekly earnings are approximately $1,000 a week, which is 17 per cent less than average weekly earnings on the mainland, where they're about $1,200. And housing: rents in Hobart are more than in Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth. And rents in greater Hobart are the country's least affordable for any metropolitan area, having risen by some 50 per cent since 2016. It's no better for those who seek to buy. In fact, over the last 20 years residential property in Tasmania has increased in value by 300 per cent, whereas on the mainland residential property over the last 20 years has increased by only 193 per cent on average. No wonder there are something like 4½ thousand Tasmanians on the public housing waiting list out of a population of only about half a million people, and the average waiting time for a priority applicant for public housing in Tasmania is now 72 weeks.
It's no better in the health space because Tasmanians—and this is well documented—are on average older and sicker than Australians on the mainland. We have one of the worst bulk-billing rates of any of the six states of the Commonwealth. Fuel prices are routinely much higher in Tasmania, and particularly in Hobart, when compared with other states and mainland capitals. We have a higher reliance on government pensions and payments—in fact, something like 30 per cent of Tasmanian households rely solely on government pensions and payments. I'm not just talking about JobSeeker and the rate of JobSeeker here. Put yourself in the shoes of someone on the age pension or the DSP having to pay $300 or $400 a week in rent. It's simply unachievable. And, of course, Tasmania is not immune from the national gas and electricity price rises.
This can be fixed. The government—the previous government, this government—has the tools at its disposal. For example, with housing, we really need to increase Commonwealth rent assistance. We really need investment housing tax reform. And, of course, we need much greater investment in social housing in Tasmania and across the Commonwealth. Yes, I applaud the federal government for promising to invest much more during this year and in the following years. But it's still only a fraction of what's required.
In health, we can lower the cost of living for many Australians by increasing access to bulk billing. But that will only occur if the Medicare rebate is significantly increased. Much talked about but never achieved is rolling dental care into Medicare. On fuel prices, let's give the ACCC the teeth to rein in the profiteers. When petrol in Hobart is 20c a litre more than the cost of petrol—or diesel, for that matter—in Melbourne or Sydney and the cost of moving that fuel to Tasmania might be 1c a litre then there's only one explanation, and that's profiteering. As far as energy prices more broadly go, the government needs to act and act urgently. As recently as this morning ministers were out talking about turning their mind to doing things, but let's do these things. Let's cap prices. Let's have a superprofits tax. Let's have a national gas reserve.
We can afford this. Ditch the stage 3 tax cuts, tax the wealthy companies and individuals, and let's reprioritise the federal budget. That's what I and many Australians will be looking to next May, when the first regular budget of this government is brought down. Will it reprioritise and will it do things to genuinely lower the cost of living for many Australians? The government and some speakers here today are making much of the budget two weeks ago. Yes, there were some very welcome measures to relieve the cost of living, but it's only a start. I am pleased that today the crossbench has offered the new government any number of suggestions that could be included in the May budget.
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (16:13): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance, although I do find it ironic that this is an MPI that includes contributions from some that extraordinarily, if perhaps inadvertently, tried to block supply. That action, if it had been successful, would have been catastrophic for anyone with a real interest in addressing inequality. Every person on this side of the chamber understands the importance of addressing inequality. Dealing with inequality has been in Labor's DNA for more than 100 years. Every member of the government cares about workers and their plight as they try to balance the books at home. I wonder: have those having a go at the government today been watching the debate in this chamber today? We are literally moving a bill designed to deliver secure jobs and better pay, a bill that some in this chamber want to unconscionably delay, a bill that aims to provide more job security, help close the gender pay gap, modernise the workplace bargaining system and get wages moving.
These are all measures that address the cost of living and rising inequality.
Under the previous government, wages were deliberately kept low and insecure work was encouraged. Labor is taking the opposite approach, because we want to help workers get ahead. The Albanese Labor government wants a strong economy that delivers for all Australians. We want to see more workers in good jobs, jobs with security, fair pay and proper protections. We want workers to have a pathway to a better life and businesses to thrive. But, in terms of immediate action, you couldn't have been more immediate than the actions that we have taken to argue for a minimum wage increase in line with inflation. This comes after nine years of silence from those opposite during similar wage cases.
The minimum wage case is critically important, because, in particular, low paid-workers experience the worst impacts of inflation and have the least capacity to draw on savings. That's why it was one of our first acts to support wage increases for Australia's lowest paid workers, to ensure that their real wages do not go backwards. The Fair Work Commission delivered a minimum pay rise of $40 per week for full-time workers, benefiting around 2.7 million workers.
We're doing much, much more. We have introduced legislation that will drive investment in cleaner and cheaper energy, putting downward pressure on power prices. We are modernising the electricity grid to help put downward pressure on prices and support the transformation to a clean energy future. You can achieve more than one public good at the same time. Our allocation of $20 billion to the Rewiring the Nation fund will make much-needed upgrades to our outdated energy grid. New investment in renewables generation and shortage capacity will reduce Australia's exposure to international energy prices. We know what's happened over the course of this year. We'll create construction jobs in regional Australia and fast-track growth in sectors such as green hydrogen and battery production.
We are making early childhood education and care more affordable. This is the central part of our budget. We're investing $4.7 billion over four years to make early education more affordable for 96 per cent of families. This is an economic reform that will empower women with young children to work up to 1.4 million more hours per week in 2023-24.
Our budget cuts the costs of medicines. Starting next year, the maximum co-payment under the PBS will fall from $42.50 to $30 per script, a 29 per cent reduction. Each year, that will save 3.6 million Australians more than $190 million in out-of-pockets costs. So many pharmacists have told me what a difference they have seen in terms of their client base, knowing what medicines too many Australians have gone without because of the cost of those medicines. And, of course, from 2026 families will be able to access up to 26 weeks of paid parental leave—the biggest expansion of paid parental leave since—who?—Labor introduced it in 2011. We're fast-tracking fee-free TAFE places. There's so much more we're doing. We're improving pay equality for women. We've got a housing accord that will deliver a million affordable houses in next few years. I'm not sure how much else we can do.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (16:18): I'm pleased to contribute to this debate. Australia's energy crisis is compounding the cost-of-living crisis in my electorate. Power costs make up a big chunk of household budgets, and, by and large, my constituents are not wealthy. Our weekly median income is just $736, almost $70 less than the Australian average. On top of mortgage repayments, rising rents and more expensive groceries, the forecasted 56 per cent increase in energy prices have left people wondering how on earth they'll keep the lights on when the cost of everything is going up.
The electorate of Indi is the highest ranked regional electorate facing mortgage stress, according to a recent report from UNSW. Wodonga, the largest town in my electorate, is in the top 30 postcodes in the state for forced electricity disconnections. In fact, regional areas make up 40 per cent disconnections in Victoria, even though we only make up 25 per cent of the population. And these statistics come from a time before the energy crisis began. I am very worried about what the new year will bring.
Australians need from this government a clear read about how it will rein in energy prices. First, we need a solution for the hip-pocket pain that's coming our way next year. More importantly, we need reforms that will safeguard household energy security and put families and communities at the centre. The scale of the national energy transition is daunting, but there are domestic remedies that this government could get on board with right now. I agree with the member for Macquarie; I really want to collaborate with government on this. I believe that household-level support for low-income and everyday Australians to secure cheap and reliable energy will have a game-changing impact on the cost of living.
Many people feel this problem is too big, but we need to bring it down to the local level. We should be exploring policy interventions that reduce barriers for families and households to tap into the cheapest source of power: the stuff that comes off our roofs and which we can store on our walls.
There are two policies which I took to the last election and which this government should and could adopt in its next budget. I've taken them to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and put them to him. They're not cash handouts that would drive up inflation. They would help households right now. In the spirit of collaboration, he could get on board with this.
First, there should be no-interest loans for households to electrify their homes. Australians know that solar and batteries are cheaper over the long run but more expensive to buy upfront. Most people don't have the cash in hand to start. As it stands, poorer Australians are stuck paying higher power bills because they're locked out of renewables for their home. This is where government can step in. A $10,000 loan for households to install solar, batteries and low-energy-usage appliances would unlock immediate savings for millions of households. It would help low-income households afford the upfront cost. This would address inequality, drive down power bills and tackle energy policy.
Second, this government should be making it cheaper and easier for everyday Australians to by a home battery. This would help them lower their power bills and take control of their energy usage. In the last parliament, I introduced the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2022, which would expand the Howard government's Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme for household solar. Independent modelling showed it could lower the cost of household batteries by up to $3,000 and it could triple the number of batteries in Australian households within three years.
Now, I designed this policy under a former coalition government policy—a Howard policy, actually—and maybe that's not palatable to this government, but I say: forget that; get on board anyway. It's indisputable that this is a problem that needs to be tackled if this government is serious about energy equity.
Over one-third of Australians have installed rooftop solar on their home, but just one per cent have a home battery, and that's because the batteries are too expensive. In the last 10 years, the cost of solar has come down 80 per cent. We need to do the same for batteries. We need to put them within the reach of all Australians.
The cost-of-living crisis is hitting us now, and a fair chunk of it is due to power prices. The government has the platform to act, and it should. I thank the member for Fenner, a Canberra local, for pointing us towards the Wharf Revue. I notice that it is called Looking for Albanese. I'm looking for Albanese on this one. Get on board and collaborate. This is a great solution, and we should be doing it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The discussion has now concluded.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee
Report
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (16:23): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Report by statement: A review of the regulation relisting Islamic State Somalia as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr KHALIL: by leave—I rise today to present this report by statement from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for A review of the regulation relisting Islamic State Somalia as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995. Under the Criminal Code, regulations may be made specifying an organisation as a terrorist organisation for a three-year period. Organisations can be relisted provided the minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds the organisation continues to directly or indirectly engage in terrorism or advocate doing of terrorist acts.
Islamic State Somalia was first listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian government in 2019. The regulation to relist Islamic State Somalia was tabled in the House of Representatives on 23 September this year, 2022, and in the Senate on 26 September 2022. The committee's review examined the Attorney-General's decision to relist this particular organisation. Section 102.1A of the Criminal Code provides that the committee may review a regulation which lists or relists an organisation as a terrorist organisation and report its comments and recommendations to each house of the parliament before the end of the 15-sitting-day disallowance period. This report serves this purpose and is being presented within the required period.
In determining whether the regulation relisting Islamic State Somalia should be supported, the committee reviewed the merits in accordance with the Attorney-General's explanatory statement and statement of reasons for listing the organisation, and other publicly available information. The committee also invited public submissions on the listings. No submissions were actually received on this occasion. In its deliberations, the committee noted that Islamic State Somalia was formed by a group of disenfranchised Al-Shabaab members in 2014. It follows the tenets of Islamic State and was formally recognised by Islamic State as an affiliate in 2017. The group's primary objective is to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Horn of Africa. To that end, it has performed terrorist attacks against Somali government officials and civilians. It has also promoted terrorist attacks against Australia's allies. There is sufficient evidence that this group is engaging in, preparing, assisting with or fostering terrorist activities. The Australian government's assessment is that a successful terrorist attack directly or inspired by Islamic State Somalia could harm Australians and also that the group's activities and propaganda have the potential to inspire Australian violent extremists.
After examining the evidence provided to it, the committee is satisfied with the relisting process and considers that it has been followed appropriately for this organisation. The committee therefore supports the relisting of Islamic State Somalia under section 102 of the Criminal Code in order to protect Australians and Australia's interests, and finds no reason to disallow this regulation. I commend this report to the parliament.
BILLS
Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) (16:27): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) (16:29): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) (16:30): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
."The House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the Government to:
(1) give the Australian Parliament three months to review these significant changes rather than trying to force through the legislation this year;
(2) amend the legislation to exclude changes to multi-employer bargaining which will lead to more strikes and fewer jobs without increasing productivity or wages;
(3) admit to the Australian people that these extreme industrial relations changes will result in significant red tape and higher costs for small, family and medium businesses;
(4) work with the Opposition, crossbench and other stakeholders to make improvements to the Better Off Overall Test and changes to enterprise bargaining as outlined in the former Coalition Government's legislation introduced in 2020;
(5) abandon the move to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission;
(6) redraft this legislation to ensure matters are dealt with separately rather than as an "all or nothing" approach; and
(7) in the event the bill is passed, an independent review be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act as soon as practical 12 months after the bill receives Royal Assent and cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament".
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"until an inquiry into parts 11, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the bill is undertaken by a House or Senate committee, with the inquiry lasting not less than 90 days".
to which the following amendment was moved:
That the following words be added after the words 90 days:
."; and
(1) parts 1, 2 and 3 of the bill are added to the inquiry; and
(2) calls on the Government to change the definition of a small business from 15 to 100 employees".
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (16:31): I will continue my remarks on the fair work amendment or 'union power' or 'ALP donations' bill 2022. That's what this bill in fact should be called because that's what it in fact represents—and those opposite, a collection of trade unionists, staffers and apparatchiks, know it too. I said in my remarks earlier that I had been a trade union member for 21 years, which was more than most of those in the chairs opposite could even admit themselves. I'd been a member of the Australian Journalists Association. Then it became the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, and I was a member of that union. I do understand the importance of balance within the union movement. But I also understand what this bill is going to do to small business. Indeed, we all know that he, or perhaps she, who pays the piper calls the tune. What worries me about this bill is that those who are paying the piper are the unions, and the piper in this case is the member for Watson, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. You can see him with his pipe. He will be leading our small businesses over the cliff.
There are 2.4 million businesses in Australia, and the majority of them, 98 per cent, are small or medium-sized enterprises. I can remember being a small business owner. Not many of those opposite can claim that feat. They haven't run a small business. They've run picket lines.
A government member interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: You're not getting much reaction from your colleagues, because they haven't!
Dr Aly: They have!
Mr McCORMACK: They just haven't, and you can argue all you like. They've run plenty of picket lines—plenty of picket lines—Minister, out the front of businesses, but they haven't run many businesses. I well remember a bookshop that actually stood up for a small business policy that was being put forward by the coalition, and that small business then had union activism against it. It had the Transport Workers Union making sure that the book deliveries didn't arrive, and, if the books did arrive, they were thrown out onto the street, and they had damaged corners such that the bookshop could not sell them. This is the sort of union activity that I fear we are going to see as a result of this bill.
Indeed, in the June quarter 2022, there were 52 disputes, 22 more than in the previous quarter. Why do you think that might be?
Might it be due to the fact that we've now got the Labor Party in power? Some 73,700 employees were involved—an increase from 11,400 in the previous quarter. Some 128,100 working days were lost—an increase from 19,600 in the previous quarter. Small business can't afford this. Ordinary everyday Australians can't afford this. Union disputation leads to higher costs for families that are already struggling with energy costs, which are about to go up by 56 per cent under those opposite and their shonky policies—their misled, misguided policies on energy.
A government member interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Year ended estimates—if you could pronounce it right, we'd discuss it; but seeing as how you can't, I won't—234,600 working days were lost, which was 176,900 more than in the previous year. This is what we're going to see. This is the thin end of the wedge. We know that, because Labor is back in town. Moreover, the unions are back in town. The unions are back in control. Indeed, I very much agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he said:
The coalition wants to see wages increase. We do; of course we want to see workers' wages rise. Of course we do, particularly to help Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures inflicted on them by this government's catastrophic energy policy decisions, among many other bad decisions they have already made just in the last five months. But there is no evidence that this bill will bring about rises in wages. In fact, it will lead to job losses.
I well remember that, when the pandemic was at its height and when many Australians were very fearful of the loss of their jobs, the member for Rankin gave us the goal—the ambition—to keep unemployment down and to keep the doors of business open. We not only met that goal and that ambition; we beat it big time because we actually created jobs—
An honourable member interjectin g—
Mr McCORMACK: Yes, we did—during the pandemic. I know those opposite talk—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: No, it's not, in fact, Member for Moreton. In fact, it's not. What we did during the pandemic and the policies we put in place not only saved lives but saved livelihoods. Those opposite would not know. They were not around the table when we were told that we were going to lose tens of thousands of Australians within weeks if not months due to COVID-19. I was there. I well recall it. They were heart-wrenching times. From the moment when James Kwan lost his life on 1 March 2020—the first Australian to lose his life due to COVID-19—they were times that needed a responsible government, able to make the right and proper decisions at the time. That said, this particular policy is bad policy.
I must say that it would be remiss of me not to note, with some sadness, the death of Peter Reith. He was a very good industrial relations advocate for our nation. He has passed away at the all-too-young age of 72, and I acknowledge the role that he played in very difficult circumstances. I know what the waterfront wars—the dispute on our wharves—meant for Australian farmers and Australian businesses. They were trying to export to the world and trying to bring in heavy machinery to plant the crops, to strip the crops and to do what they do in rural and regional Australia and they were unable to because of union activity. What we don't want to see as a result of this bill is the likes of John Setka dominating our industrial relations. We need to keep those sorts of people very much at bay. Those sorts of people should not have control over industrial sites, over workplaces or, indeed, over construction sites. That's the fear. We all have it, and we know this is just the unions leading Labor a merry dance.
Dr ALY (Cowan—Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth) (16:39): I rise to speak in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. I want to put on the record that I rise to support this bill not just because I sit on this side of the House and certainly not because I am any kind of apparatchik, as the previous speaker seems to think. I rise to speak in support of this bill because of the dozens and dozens of early childhood educators that I've met with and the dozens and dozens of young people who are in insecure work that I've met with over the past few months. Over the past few months I think I've had around eight round tables with early childhood education workers and, on top of that, met with some in their workplaces. And I've held around the same, maybe eight or nine, round tables with young people aged 12 to 25, but predominantly of working age, about their experiences in work and the impact of insecure and casualised work on them and their families. Through those discussions, talking to those people, I have become entirely convinced that this bill addresses the modernisation of the industrial relations system that is needed to give these young people the security they need in their work to address the issues they're experiencing in work as well as giving early childhood education and care workers the power they need to ensure that they are fairly paid and that their pay reflects their level of expertise and the important work they do.
I also have become more and more convinced about this bill—if I wasn't already convinced, but even more so—in listening to those opposite and their arguments against this bill. Every argument they've got against this bill is purely about fearmongering—a Chicken Little style 'sky is falling' scaremongering that this bill is somehow going to lead to union thuggery and strikes and whatever. Those opposite can come and meet with the 30 early childhood education workers who are here today, who were up in the gallery when the Prime Minister was up on his feet speaking about this bill, and tell them to their face that they're union thugs. Have a look at the kinds of people who are fighting for this bill. They are not union thugs. They are early childhood education workers who are trying to make ends meet, who are dedicated to caring for and educating our most precious asset: the children of this nation.
I want to start with the young people, though, and I'll come back to early childhood education workers, because I want to thank Desmond, Norby, Deanna and Asra, who met with me last night, along with a group of around 30 or 40 young people, to talk about their experience. I want to thank them for being willing to raise their voices and share their experiences so bravely and so openly. And I've no doubt that any of the other members who attended the event last night with these young people and heard from them understand from those discussions, from those stories, that the system is broken and that urgent action is needed to address it, and this bill is the urgent action that those young workers need. They were telling stories of being offered $10 an hour to work in hospitality—$10 an hour is what they were being offered to work in hospitality—as well as the conditions under which they were working, the insecurity of their work, and how difficult it is to make ends meet when you have to choose between going to university or taking on an extra shift just to make ends meet.
Anyone who's spoken to any low-paid worker in this country should understand that the bargaining system in our country is broken, and we need this bill. We need urgent action to get wages moving. That is why I am proud to stand here as a member of the Albanese government that has brought this bill forward, delivering on our election commitments.
I want to turn to elements within the bill that are particularly relevant to early childhood education and care workers. As I mentioned earlier, I have had some round tables with them, and every single one of them is excited about this bill and the ability for multi-employer bargaining that this bill will bring to them, making it easier for them to access the benefits of multi-employer bargaining. We have seen this with the Melbourne example, where 70 early childhood learning centres were able to come together and through multi-employer bargaining achieve, for their workers, 18 per cent above the award rate. They are the most well-paid workers in early childhood education and care in Victoria. But in order to do that, they each had to go through individual negotiations. Allowing for multi-employer bargaining will really improve the lot for early childhood education and care workers and enable them to get some of the pay rise they need to acknowledge the importance and significance of the work they do.
Beyond that, there are elements in this bill that fulfil our commitment to reducing the gender pay gap across a number of industries, particularly feminised industries. These include the early childhood education and care sector, where over 90 per cent of the workforce is women; strengthening the ability and capacity of the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for workers in low-paid female dominated industries; and making gender equality an objective of the Fair Work Act, embedding statutory equal remuneration principles to help guide the way the commission considers equal remuneration and work value cases. I've heard from early childhood education workers who've taken equal remuneration cases to the Fair Work Commission and those cases have failed. This bill will help to rectify that.
We stand here for those people. Those opposite love to talk about the cost of living. Here is something that will really make a difference to the cost of living: lifting wages for our lowest paid workers. Rather than carrying on like 'Chicken Little' about the sky falling down, and some kind of scaremongering and fearmongering about unions, perhaps those opposite could go and talk to some of the lowest paid workers in their electorates and consider just how much our system is broken and how much this bill can deliver on fixing a system and delivering, for those low-paid workers, at least an avenue for wage increases. On that, I commend this bill to the House.
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (16:47): I take you back to November 1972. I was in my second year in high school at the time. Gough Whitlam, in full campaign mode, gave a speech at Blacktown in Sydney. He said: 'The strength of the multinational corporations in the Australian economy requires strong unions.' Two months later, Whitlam was elected Australia's 21st Prime Minister. While he proclaimed strong unions as the foundation of strong business, history tells us what happened next. Whitlam had committed his Labor government to facilitate the amalgamation of Australian trade unions. He empowered them. And disaster followed. Strike action became widespread, including sympathy strikes by those unrelated to a particular dispute.
They say those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Fifty years later, and the Albanese government is on the edge of repeating history and descending Australia back to those dark days. The Albanese government wants to hand all workplaces to the unions, including small and family businesses. They are feeding the beast. These proposed workplace changes represent the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system in decades.
At a time of growing inflation, businesses struggling with staff shortages and rapidly increasing power costs, Labor and their union masters will make a bad situation worse. Industry-wide bargaining will dramatically increase the number of strikes across the economy—just like the 1970s. While on both sides of the chamber we want higher wages in Australia, there is no evidence that these reforms put forward by the Albanese government will deliver higher wages. In fact, based on all comments from the heads of business groups, there's no such confidence.
Labor's legislation will lead to more widespread disruption and productivity losses. Businesses across Australia, small, medium and large, are united in their opposition to the changes and, in particular, to multi-employer bargaining. These changes put forward by the Albanese government will: (a) lead to more strikes and job losses; (b) allow unions into small businesses which have never had to deal with them before; (c) hold up wage rises because of increased complexity and delays; (d) undermine competition so Australians have fewer choices but face higher costs; (e) force up higher prices and increase the cost of living; and (f) unfairly target small businesses because these changes will be complicated and expensive, and they don't have human relations departments that can wade through complex changes.
When I was elected member for Mallee in 2019, the electorate had 19,997 small and medium businesses. The COVID-19 pandemic placed huge challenges on these businesses. Some could not survive. These reforms place even more pressure on the ones that remain. Employers and employees alike have a right to be very concerned about this blatant union agenda. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Burke, talks about increasing wages. There is no evidence this will occur through multi-employer bargaining. In The Conversation, Labour-market expert Mark Wooden compared 14 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations—or OECD nations—using multi-employer bargaining with 12 OECD nations where company level bargaining dominated for a decade from 2011-2021. He found that the latter delivered annual real-wage growth at 2.3 per cent, compared to 0.6 per cent for multi-employer bargaining. In short, the company model was four times more superior to the multi-employer model in terms of wage growth. Wooden has publicly questioned the utility of the new bargaining stream promoted by the unions and Labor.
Where the bill finishes defies prediction. Burke insists the bill is essential and urgent. Australian Industry Group Chief Executive Innes Willox said at the start of the week that the bill remained fatally flawed. Business Council of Australia's chief, Jennifer Westacott, said that, even with Burke's concessions on the bill, ' we run the risk that critical industries like mining, energy or our ports could be swept up' in disruption. At a precise time of economic vulnerability, Labor is compounding that vulnerability. It is pouring fuel on an open fire. Labor's line that it wants to ensure that wages get moving is the cover story for its misplaced audacity and flawed policy. Does that warrant selling Australia's soul to the greed of unions? The Albanese government is willing to risk burning down the Australian economy with this industry-wide bargaining, and after that the unions will rule over the ashes.
Taking the construction industry as an example, the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission—the ABCC—is a serious concern. It is Labor kowtowing to Australia's most militant union—the CFMMEU. The ABCC is—or, should I say 'was'—the last line of defence between a vibrant building sector and the chaos and delays caused by a union-run Labor government. We can now expect jobs will be lost, building costs will skyrocket, and large and small businesses will fold, with Labor rolling out the red carpet for the CFMEU to rule with an iron fist.
Mr Hill: The CFMMEU.
Dr WEBSTER: Thank you for that correction. That union's construction division will make millions of dollars in civil penalties and legal expenses in coming years. It is no wonder the CFMMEU's Victorian secretary, John Setka, said he was impressed by Tony Burke's move to scrap the ABCC and the building code. The Ernst & Young report from April this year was very clear that if the ABCC is abolished it could lead to a total economic loss of around $47.5 billion by 2030. This is all deeply concerning.
The overwhelming number of issues in Labor's bill relate to bargaining, particularly the provisions relating to multi-employer bargaining. Labor's bill explores the single-interest stream by allowing the Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interest to bargain together where it is in the public interest for them to do so. Business groups are united in their condemnation of the common interest provision being so broad as to be ridiculous—and they are right. This is a gift for the union movement around Australia. This will allow unions to apply to compel employers to bargain together if the move has the support of the majority of employees, and this is backed by the right to strike. Being coerced into bargaining based on some vague common interest test, which could simply be a small flower retailer in the same complex as Myer, is fundamentally unfair. That is not bargaining. It is compulsion, and it is fundamentally unfair. It is coercion. It means that once an employer becomes part of a multi-employer agreement, it can no longer pursue a single-enterprise bargain.
The Labor government knows what it's doing. It is going to kill off enterprise bargaining by stealth. What does this all mean? In time, these multi-employer agreements will be the new form of centralised wage-fixing system where the wage will be fixed by a union or the commission. Awards will become less relevant because they will be replaced by these large omnibus multi-employer agreements coercing many employers into a one-size-fits-all document called an agreement. This is all justified on the basis of getting wages moving. It may well get wages moving, but it might do so in a way that adds to inflationary pressures. It also gets wages moving with no productivity trade-offs and job losses.
This bill represents a very clear and deliberate shift by the Albanese government away from bargaining at the enterprise level towards industry level, something the unions have been long campaigning for. It all comes down to what should be the fundamentals of society: governments do not create jobs; businesses and employers do. Governments put in place frameworks that business and employers are able to lever off to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. This should be the essence of fair work legislation.
Industrial relations reform is without a doubt one of the most important of all the economic reforms required to make Australia more productive and competitive. Any changes to the industrial relations framework must be designed to lift both productivity and wages. This is the last thing that this bill will do. Businesses across Australia have deep reservations that the expansion of multi-employer bargaining risks jeopardising the important focus on encouraging employers and employees to reach agreements at the enterprise level. Any broader system of multi-employer bargaining must be voluntary and cannot lead to another layer of ill suited industry-wide terms and conditions. It is critical we avoid any changes that could result in increased industrial action, supply chain bottlenecks and unsustainable wage pressures, and that is what this bill does.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): I remind the House that the member for Macnamara and other members will be heard in silence.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (16:57): I concur that the member for Macnamara absolutely should be heard in silence! He's a very sharp member, if I may say so! In the chamber we have some very well behaved schoolkids who have been listening to this debate, and I have to say they have done extremely well. They obviously have better things to do than to listen to this particular contribution. But what's in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill is very important for the young people of Australia because the sorts of workplaces that these young Australians are going to be entering are ones where there has never been more insecure work. The workplaces that these young Australians are going to be entering are going to have the highest rate of casualisation of any time in Australia's history. Wages have been flatlining for the best part of a decade, and the sort of gender pay gap that confronts especially the female students that have been watching this debate is too high at 14.1 per cent. What we have in this country is an economic system that is really creating so many hurdles for young Australians to get by, and so these young Australians are watching this debate and thinking. They're asking themselves: what am I going to have to show for the 40 years of working in this country? What am I going to have to show for contributing and doing my bit for this country? Well, the majority of young people who are entering the workplace are going to be priced out of the housing market. For especially females working in the lower-paid industries, superannuation will determine their ability to retire with some form of reasonable financial security, and for some that is going to be completely unobtainable. So what is this place doing to try to create the systems and empowerment for those Australians who are going through our workforce to try to have a bit more of an even ledger?
What we've heard from those opposite throughout this entire day has been the same old tired argument. They claim that they want to see higher wages in this country. I've heard a number of speakers on that side of the House—they've all walked out—claiming that they want to see higher wages in this country, which would be believable except for one fact: over the last 10 years, when they were in government, I cannot name, and I challenge the House to name, one initiative that they brought in while they were in government that was designed to lift the wages of Australian workers. There was not one thing, one policy, one piece of legislation that those opposite, when in government, brought into this place that was designed to lift the wages of Australian workers. Instead, we saw attacks on the things like the better-off-overall test. Thankfully, the Senate rejected their continuous attacks on working Australians. But they come into this place, where there is a fair and good piece of legislation that for once is designed to lift the wages of Australian workers, and yet again they are opposing it.
The former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, famously said:
When you change the government, you change the country.
Look at all the differences in wages already in the six months since we took government. Despite the hysteria that those opposite were ranting and raving about—saying a five per cent lift in the minimum wage was going to cause all sorts of chaos and the sky would fall in—all it did was provide a long-overdue pay rise for our lowest-paid workers. That's it. And then we see a refusal by those opposite to back in the wage request of our aged-care workers, people who literally turned up during the height of the pandemic, who put themselves at risk to work in some of the most vulnerable environments, who were understaffed, who were facing the unimaginable circumstances and unimaginable suffering of our old Australians. These people turned up to work to do their best for our older Australians, and those characters on that side of the House didn't even have the heart to back in their wage request at the Fair Work Commission. Think about what it takes to actually deny our aged-care workers the support of their government when they're requesting a rise in wages.
Those opposite oppose the minimum-wage rise. They oppose the wage rise for our aged-care workers. I know that the Minister for Early Childhood Education has been absolutely on the side of our early educators in working to try to get them the support that they need, because they do such important work supporting our youngest Australians, but of course those opposite don't support that. And yet they come into this place with the union-bashing lines that, frankly, haven't won them an election for a long time. What does a typical unionist look like in Australia? It is a 40-year-old woman who's a nurse, a teacher, and aged-care worker or an early childhood worker. These are the people, these are the workers, that those opposite are disparaging. They are the 'thugs'—our teachers, our nurses, our aged-workers, our early childhood education workers, our cleaners. They're the people about whom those opposite come in here with their tired old lines that, frankly, belong in the political conversation of yesteryear.
Instead of denying the minimum-wage increases, instead of denying aged-care workers a pay increase, instead of attacking the better-off-overall test, what does a Labor government do? A Labor government comes into this place and says, 'We want to empower workers and give them more ability to bargain at the enterprise bargaining table.' What do we want to do? We want to make sure that, when companies are advertising their jobs, they don't advertise jobs that are paid below the minimum wage. What do we want to do? We want to make sure that for all of the young Australians who are entering into the workplace and who are facing the highest level of casualisation in the history of our country, the highest level of insecure work in the history of Australia—what we want to do? We want to try and put an end date on that to say that if you are working in a company for two years we think it's fair that you have an opportunity for either part-time or full-time employment and all of the benefits that come with that. What do we want to see? We want to see women who are facing gender pay gaps in this country have a sporting chance to close that gap.
Of course, instead of bringing themselves to support people who are in the workplace doing their bit for Australia they come into this place with the tired, old lines that have nothing to do with this piece of legislation. They are stuck in this age-old conflict with working Australians, but we are not there, and nor do I believe Australians are there. Australians know how important our supermarket workers were during the pandemic. Australians know how important our delivery drivers were during the pandemic. Australians know how important our aged-care workers were during the pandemic—and still are, obviously. Australians know how important our teachers are. Australians know how important our nurses are. Australians know how important the people who serve us at cafes are—who brew coffee, who work in the hospitality industry, who make our cities vibrant and rich. Australians know how important every single worker who is turning up to work with honesty, dignity and pride in this country is. Australians know that they deserve an industrial relations framework that gives them a sporting chance to get by in this country. And Australians know that if you are working in this country for 40 years at the end of all of that you should have something to show for it. If you're giving 40 to 50 years of your life for this country, then this country should set up the framework to ensure that when you retire you have some level of financial security to enjoy your post working life.
Yet those opposite don't come in with any sympathy towards hard-working Australians. They come in with their tired, old union bashing lines, but we don't. We're here. We're proud to set up a strong industrial relations framework. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (17:07): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. The bracketed title of 'Secure Jobs, Better Pay' is, of course, completely laughable, as we know that under this legislation jobs will be less secure and real wages will be worse. The problem we have with this government and this legislation is that it was developed by people who never owned a business and, therefore, have no idea how small-business owners think. As someone who has owned small businesses for over 20 years, and mixed with other small-business owners, I can tell you that small-business owners want workers to earn as much as they can. We all want that. People often forget that 90 per cent of small-business owners started as employees, so we understand what it is to be an employee as well.
I spent the first four years of my full-time working life on the minimum wage. The last two of those years were as a new dad. I was the only household income and we got by. I worked hard. I went over and above, doing extra hours and asking for no extra pay—oh my gosh! It was all off my own bat. My sacrifices were rewarded with promotions which came along with higher wages.
In all things there must be balance. Unfortunately, this is often lost on socialist and communist governments around the world. Their misguided ideology to ensure that workers get everything they possibly can unfortunately has no regard—
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): I remind the House that members are entitled to speak and be heard with respect.
Mr YOUNG: for the impact that these decisions will have on businesses, and in turn the very workers they are supposed to be fighting for. Again, this is simply a result of their lack of business experience and acumen.
Look at the manufacturing industry in Australia. As someone who spent 20-odd years in the electrical appliance industry, I watched with dismay as electrical appliances went from being made in this country to being made offshore. When I started in that industry in 1986 I was selling Malley's Whirlpool, Hoover and Simpson washing machines, Kelvinator and Westinghouse fridges, Dishlex dishwashers, Chef's stoves, Sunbeam frypans, Victa mowers and AWA TVs all made in Australia. Then, in the late nineties and early 2000s, the Westinghouse fridge was $1,000 and the Korean import equivalent was $700, so the 90 per cent of people who were budget conscious saved the $300, and eventually all the factories that made these local products shut down. From being in the industry and talking with manufacturers, it was simply a commercial decision. The cold hard facts were that a person in the factory that was earning $30,000 for a 40-hour week was now earning $40,000 for a 36-hour week. This, coupled with the lack of productivity when strike action occurred to meet these union demands, simply meant it was cheaper to go offshore and make these goods overseas. This meant thousands of jobs lost. People who had worked for these companies their whole lives, for 20, 30, 40 years, with no other training and no other job prospects—gone.
My question is: where were their union mates then? Nowhere to be seen. Those workers no longer had jobs, so they couldn't pay union dues, so 'see you later, Jack'. The same thing happened in our car manufacturing industry. For goodness sake, mainly due to high wages, it's now cheaper to send Australia fruit overseas to be canned and to have it shipped back here than it is to can it here—absolutely ridiculous.
We must leave this issue between employers and employees. As an employer I can tell you that employers would much rather hang onto employees than go through the arduous task of hiring and training new staff. To do this, employers are always looking for ways to reward good employees so we retain them in the business.
Whether we like it or not, we are part of a global community and economy, and we must be competitive to ensure our economic viability. To achieve this we need wages that are as high as possible without making us uncompetitive. Even the retail industry I'm from is not immune to global competitors. The advent of online shopping and cheaper international shipping has meant that our margins have been squeezed. The profits, of course, are what we pay our business expenses—such as rent, energy, and wages—from. Once a business has negotiated and signed a lease, that cost is fixed. Power, insurances, workers compensation and all other costs are out of a business's control. Out of all of these costs, the only controllable cost that businesses have is wages. So, if any of these costs increase, which they do every year, you must either increase profits or cut costs to meet them. Most business cannot increase prices, as it makes them more uncompetitive in a global market, so the option is to cut costs, and the only controllable cost, as I've stated, is wages. What happens in the real world is that employee hours are cut to meet these extra costs.
I spoke to a baker in my electorate of Longman after the latest $1-an-hour pay increase. One dollar doesn't sound like much, I agree. But here's the reality if it's $1 per hour. If you have 20 employees, that's an extra $20 per hour, $160 a day or $1,120 per week, which is $58,240 per year. I asked him how he covered the extra cost to his business, and he said he laid off two people. And now he and his wife are doing extra hours, and he has asked his remaining staff to work harder to cover the shortfall. The remaining staff will now not receive a Christmas bonus either, due to the lower profitability. This is what happens in the real world, not in a textbook. What about the two workers who lost their jobs? Where's the Labor government when it comes to them?
As an employer I am comfortable with the current model, where the Fair Work Commission operates independently from business and governments and decides on items such as award wages and endeavours to make their decisions that balance ensuring workers are paid as much as possible without sending businesses to the wall. But Labor don't care about this. They only care about union membership, and the way to drive this is to preach only half the message and to incite division between well-meaning, caring employers and hardworking employees who, in the main, have had a good working relationship to date and have been able to come to agreeable terms without government and union interference. But, of course, we know that socialist and communist governments' underlying ideology is to control people's lives, and this legislation feeds into that ideology.
I've listened with interest to the comments by many of those on the other side, talking about the fact that men aren't taking up the teaching profession due to low wages. As the son of a woman who was a schoolteacher her entire life, and from having two close friends who are in the teaching profession, I know that it is the fear of false abuse allegations and the stress of being spat at, kicked and punched by students and not being able to discipline them that is keeping them away, not low wages. That is why the teaching profession is more female dominated.
But why would the Labor Party let the facts get in the way of their little fantasy story? After all, we have Peter Pan for a prime minister and Tinkerbell for a treasurer, who live in a fantasy land called never-never land, which is pretty well named because, under them, Australia will never, never get ahead. The newly elected member for Hawke showed the Labor Party's true colours with his comments that this legislation gets equal income distribution going. That is the real agenda here: pure socialism, which says that, no matter how hard you work, what sacrifices you make or how much you personally put on the line, everyone should have the same standard of living.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Order! I give the call to the member for Bruce.
Mr Hill: I seek an intervention under standing order 66A, and I invite the member to explain a little more about communism, socialism and also why the car industry left Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Longman, do you accept the question from the member for Bruce?
Mr YOUNG: No, of course not. It's ridiculous. So what planet does this thinking come from? Someone who makes a sacrifice like giving up four years to study or who does an apprenticeship or puts their family home up as collateral and works 80 hours a week should have the same income and standard of living as someone who decides either not to work at all or to work a 38-hour week with no risk? Hello? Hello? We're back in never-never land. No. When I was on the minimum wage and I watched others who had success and I saw what they did, I was inspired and wanted to follow in their footsteps.
Of course the Labor Party with their core purpose to increase union membership will do all they can to ensure larger employers—which are easier to infiltrate—will put smaller local family owned and run businesses out of business by having industry-wide bargaining. Smaller employers who do not have HR departments like their bigger counterparts will simply have no say in future workplace industrial relations, which is reprehensible and is, again, part of the socialist agenda which wants to eliminate individuality and small-business aspirations in favour of big companies that they can control via union membership. This bill is nothing to do with workers. It's all to do with attempting to drive up union membership. I hand it to the Labor Party. They are experts in getting people to bind to their hidden agendas by having the appearance of caring, but, in reality, they truly are wolves in sheep's clothing. I believe the Australian people are smarter than the Labor Party give them credit for and will see this smoke and mirrors legislations for what it is and I hope the non-Labor senators will block it as well.
To further show how out of touch this Labor government is, in question time today the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations rattled off over 25 names of organisations and groups they consulted with on this bill. Do you know how many names of small businesses he stated? Zero—not one. He of course consulted with three large employers, Qantas, Woolworths and Toll—no union membership going on there—but the majority of consultations were with bodies that are supposed to be representatives of small businesses, not real, living, actual small-business owners. Yes, Tony, they really are out there if you want to go and actually meet them.
This bill is a disgrace. It has no balance and it puts more strain on already stressed small-business owners. It will cause more job losses and Australian workers will be worse off. If this Labor government understood business and the economy, they might actually get this.
(Quorum formed)
Mr HILL (Bruce) (17:20): It has been terrific, actually, sitting through the contributions of those opposite, but I think, having listened to some of them, I'm just going to issue a trigger warning at the start: I'm going to say 'wage rises for workers', which is obviously a very upsetting and concerning phrase, given the kinds of demented reactions we have had all day from those opposite when we have talked about this. Let's be very clear: the primary purpose of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is to get wages moving again. We've heard the blather and the noise from the bin chickens over there for the last 24 hours, but there's a cost-of-living crisis in this country. Everything is going up except your wages. The Leader of the Opposition thought he was very clever running that line.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Order! The member for Bruce will take his seat. The shadow minister, the member for Bradfield, has the call.
Mr Fletcher: That was an unparliamentary term and the member should withdraw it.
Mr Hill: It's a bit unfair to bin chickens.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member for Bruce assist the House, please?
Mr HILL: I will assist you, Deputy Speaker, by withdrawing those things I just said. Everything in this country is going up except wages—electricity, gas, bills, food, rent, goods, services. But, let's be clear, the cost of living has two components: the price of goods and things that people pay for and the wages that people earn. It's money in, money out. I know that's a very difficult concept for the former government over there that left the country with a structural budget deficit of $40 billion, nearly a trillion dollars of Liberal debt and not enough to show for it, so we'll just break it down: it's money in, money out.
Now, the budget that we, the government, just handed down included cost-of-living relief without putting upwards pressure on inflation—cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, extended paid parental leave, affordable housing—and without the cash splash, which we saw from the former government, that pushes up inflation. That's one side of the equation. This bill is the other side of the equation. This is about getting wages moving and putting more money in people's pockets—the trigger warning that I gave you before.
Now, after a decade of the Liberal Party being in government, let's be really clear on their record. Real wages in this country were lower after 10 years of the Liberals than they were when they were elected. It's a shocking record. Australians are desperate for wage rises. Then they blamed COVID. They cannot hide behind COVID, because between 2013 and 2019—the six years before COVID—real wages were third last in the OECD. They'd fallen by 0.7 per cent in this country even before COVID. That's their economic record.
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill is critical, then, and urgent to getting wages moving. It delivers on our election commitments and on the agreements made right across the country through the Jobs and Skills Summit. It promotes job security through new laws with new limits to stop employers from misusing fixed-term contracts. It'll help close the gender pay gap. It'll modernise the wages bargaining system and reform the better off overall test. It will ban job ads that advertise jobs below the legal minimum. I can't believe that it was ever legal to advertise jobs at $10 an hour or $15 an hour and trick people, often vulnerable migrants and students, into working under slave-like conditions.
Why do those opposite oppose this legislation? First, before we go into that, I just want to call out the nonsense and hysteria that we've heard from the Liberals—the dregs, the leftovers of the former government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Fletcher: Deputy Speaker, the member appears to have a problem with the repeated use of unparliamentary language. He's doing it again and he needs to withdraw it.
Mr HILL: You're right. I think we did have this debate in question time yesterday, and the conclusion was that 'dregs' is probably not nice—but it's easy to withdraw, so I'll withdraw that—but 'leftovers' is fine; the Speaker confirmed that. So let's go with 'leftovers of the former government'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Bruce, in continuation.
Mr HILL: The hysteria and fearmongering about this bill is all they've got. Senator Cash is indeed—as the Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday—a gift to the nation by being left in that opposition shadow minister portfolio. She says it will lead to 'more strikes and less jobs!' This spouting hyperbolic nonsense—she looks like a demented real estate agent, popping up, running these weird lines. It'll unleash industrial and economic—actually, that was unfair. I'll withdraw 'real estate agent' because that was unfair to real estate agents.
These are speakers' quotes from the last couple of hours: 'It'll unleash industrial and economic chaos,' 'Unions will rule over the ashes of Australia,' 'The bill will potentially close down Australia,' 'If wages go up, Australia will close down,' 'If we have wage rises through this bill it will be feeding the beast.' The member for wherever she's from said: 'All businesses will go broke; businesses will all just close!' That's apparently what's going to happen if this bill is passed.
Let's be clear what's really going on. The Liberals are desperate to stop this bill, as it will reduce barriers to bargaining and actually get wages moving again. That's the point of the bill, and it will especially help lower paid workers, who are overwhelmingly female workers. The Liberals always fight against wage rises. In a decade there was not one piece of legislation in this country, not one real action, to ever push wages up. That was a deliberate policy that they had. It's the entire point of the Liberal Party, isn't it? When you boil it down and strip away all the rhetoric and the nice little dot points and cute little phrases, they exist for two reasons: to protect those who already have the most wealth, and to stop workers getting a greater share of the pie. That's the point of them. That's who donates to them. That's who funds them. That's who props up the whole rotten edifice over there.
I'm proud of the record already of this government. We've shown our colours: 5.2 per cent. We backed it at the Fair Work Commission, a rise to the minimum wage. Last week we backed a rise for aged-care workers. A royal commission recommended it, the former government wouldn't do it and we did it: a 15 per cent wage rise for aged-care workers.
Their former finance minister admitted—in a rare outbreak-of-truth moment—that it was a deliberate policy of the former government: 'It's a deliberate design feature of our economic management to keep wages down.' That's what he said. Another uncharacteristic outbreak of truth came this week, I think, from the shadow Treasurer. He was asked by journalists why he opposes the industrial relations changes. He said, 'Because it would push up wages!' He should probably tell some of the members, because we've just heard quite a number of them say in the same speech, 'This is an outrage because it'll push up wages,' and in the next breath, 'but there's no evidence that wages will rise.' That's a direct quote from the member for Mallee who just spoke.
It is also amusing when they talk about productivity, which we've heard a bit about from those sitting here. Apparently it's going to hurt productivity. That's nonsense. It's pretty bizarre they've raised productivity, because their record on productivity is amongst the worst in the OECD. Over their decade in office, in government, we saw less productivity before COVID under the Liberals. In 2013 we were ranked 10th highest in the OECD for productivity, 1.7 per cent growth. Not terrific but a damn sight better than their record. In 2018: fifth last, negative productivity growth, minus 0.3 per cent. They have no basis to lecture us on productivity.
The bill is urgent. There are claims—false ones—that it's rushed. There's been extensive consultation. There'll be a Senate inquiry. There have been months of consultation with employer groups, with unions—I should have issued another trigger warning before I said 'unions', for those over there—academics and experts, the Jobs and Skills Summit. Australians want this done. Wages are going up at 2.6 per cent now, yet inflation is running at 7.3 per cent. So, no, in answer to the cries from those opposite, we can't wait another month. We can't just think about it for a little bit longer over Christmas. Australians have waited for a decade as their wages have fallen. They shouldn't be made to wait longer because of delays here, because the parliament can't do the job it's paid to do. It's been through the election. It's been through the Jobs and Skills Summit. There have been months of consultation.
In particular, in closing, this is so important for women in this country. For too long, women's work has been undervalued and underpaid and concentrated in insecure sectors and conditions. Our economic recovery from the mess left by those opposite cannot be based on women's work continuing to be undervalued and unequally paid. The gender pay gap in this country is 14.1 per cent, and let's be very clear: this bill will put upward pressure on wages, which is what we need, and it will particularly enable lower paid workers in female dominated industries to actually have a fair crack at the enterprise bargaining system. Only about 14.1 per cent of workers in the country now have access to the enterprise bargaining system. That needs to improve, and in particular we need to help those lower paid female workers. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WILLCOX (Dawson) (17:30): It's clear that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is nothing more than unionism gone mad. I'm compelled to speak in opposition to these radical reforms not just for the sake of common sense prevailing, not for the sake of smart and successful business practice but, more importantly, for the sake of small, medium, and large business owners in my electorate of Dawson.
The government's role is simple: set up business for success. These reforms do not do that. These reforms put the agenda of the unions first and the interests of business second. Never once have I heard from a small business owner, 'I would love nothing more than to bargain with the unions.' You see, if this legislation were put into effect in its current form, family businesses in Dawson such as a petrol station, an independent supermarket or a cafe would be facing infiltration from the unions when they simply work to serve the community and provide for their families. I visit local businesses in Dawson every week and I can see the hard work, the long hours and the personal resources that are poured out by hardworking residents for their businesses to succeed.
Small business makes up 98 per cent of Australian business, and 4.7 million of our jobs are in small business. These guys have been through so much already. Through COVID they were emotionally and financially depleted, and this just may be the tipping point for them. This bill will undermine the autonomy of business, undermine and compromise competition and allow unions to infiltrate small business. It will lead to job losses, will lead to more strikes and industrial action and will unfairly target small business. This bill doesn't improve the lives of Australians; provide long-term, sustainable, real wage growth; make a fairer system for individual businesses; increase productivity; or reduce the cost-of-living pressures.
I want to see real wages increase. This side of the chamber wants to see real wages increase. Of course we do. We want what is best for all Australians, and that's why we oppose this legislation. This bill is about the Labor government reimbursing their union masters, who have given them over $100 million—yes, over $100 million. In doing that, this reckless government is trying to rush through the most radical reforms to industrial relations in recent memory without listening to the Australian people, without allowing for a sufficient scrutiny process and without consulting with the business community. I haven't even had time to consult with my constituents or the businesses in my electorate that this will impact.
At the election, Labor made no indication that they wanted to introduce these radical reforms. They said the opposite. These are the biggest IR reforms since the GST was introduced. When the Howard government undertook the GST reforms, they held countless consultations and many inquiries to ensure that their reforms were the right fit for all Australians and for the future of the nation, but what we have here is a bill sneaking through by stealth. This bill is off. It's bad for Australians, it's bad for business and it sets us a very dangerous path.
Labor claimed that this radical legislation will be one size fits all, a magic bullet that puts more money in the pockets of workers. It will increase inflation and increase the cost-of-living pressures. Anyone who runs a small business knows that time and resources are precious. This bill accounts for none of that. A small business with a few employees doesn't have the capacity to have a HR department. In a complex system of multi-employer bargaining small businesses will be left vulnerable to over-reaching unions and lawyers.
This bill wants to make unique and varied businesses conform to a static standard. It does this under a stealthy principle called common interest. It will lead to under-resourced small business relying on big business to negotiate their own terms and conditions, resulting in the final agreed conditions being likely to be an ill fit for the needs of their organisation, thus making their operations unaffordable.
Let me give you an example, Deputy Speaker. In Mackay, in my electorate of Dawson, we have a major shopping centre called caneland. It could be deemed that the businesses that operate in the shopping centre are compelled to bargain together because of their common interest. Under this ambiguous structure the tenants of caneland will have to enter into negotiations and reach a static and uniform agreement on their employees' conditions. So you could end up with a situation where a locally-owned cafe is required to have the same agreement as a major department store within the same complex, yet these two stores are worlds apart. They have different customers, different operations, different objectives, different opening hours and different staffing numbers. One has an HR department. The other doesn't. One has the owner doing the books. The other has a large finance team. One has mostly casual or junior staff. The other predominantly employs permanent, full-time or part-time staff. One has to close the business around holiday periods or when a family emergency arises. The other has predictable opening hours. Yet because of their geographical common interest under this bill they could be considered the same. In the real world the cafe owner simply may not have the time, the staff or the capabilities to enter into complex bargaining negotiations like the department store, let alone the capacity to deal with the workers' strikes in the interim. To make the process simple they may have to defer the legwork to the HR team in the department store, meaning the finalised agreement would likely favour the interests of the department store over the cafe.
Business groups across Australia are united in their concern about this bill and its severe consequences that may force them to bargain together. Even the crossbench is against these radical laws, so that's saying something. This union-pleasing Labor government is treating all small businesses with contempt.
Principally, the government should only be introducing industrial relations reforms if they are designed to lift both productivity and wages. This bill will not achieve that. If small, medium and large enterprises are slapped with unsustainable agreements it will reduce their productivity, cut jobs and, in most cases, they will have to close the doors.
Picking up on the example of the cafe and the department store once again, should the cafe find themselves having to achieve the working hours, the contracts and the wages tailored to suit the department store needs, it is entirely possible that the cafe could find itself in an agreement that is untenable for its unique circumstances, which could lead them to shutting their doors for good. It leaves the student, the mother, the owner without a job. It's not a wage increase if you don't have a job.
This bill is a huge impost to small business, which is the backbone of our nation. I believe we should be making life easier for small-business owners, not more difficult. At a time of an inflation crisis and energy woes that are going to leave our country extremely vulnerable, and create a significant cost, this government is deciding to experiment with the Australian economy, the household budget and the working businesses of our nation. It is foolish. It is irresponsible. They are more interested in ideological battles and lining their pockets with union money than in helping everyday Australians. The Labor government are blindsiding the nation and further jeopardising businesses, who have already been through so much. These industrial laws are a disgrace and should never become law in this country. And it is all for the sake of the $100 million that has lined Labor's pockets. Look after Australia. Do your job.
(Quorum formed)
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (17:42): I'm pleased to rise to speak in support of this important bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This bill is why I am here. In my first speech I made it clear that fair workplace relations are at the heart of a healthy social democracy. Fair workplace relations should be a priority for the parliament to act on with the urgency that it deserves. This is why we are here. We are a government with an ambitious agenda to transform Australia into a fairer and more sustainable country. The drive for greater fairness is woven into the fabric of our government. You can see this right across our legislative program. You can see this right here in this bill. This bill represents a choice for the nation—a choice to get wages moving and dismantle the architecture of deliberate wage suppression; a choice to close the gender pay gap and take long-overdue steps to put gender equity at the heart of our workplace laws; a choice to improve job security; a choice to retire organisations that were established with a political agenda to promote conflict; and a choice to choose fairness.
I come to this debate with real experience of industrial relations in this country. Before coming to this place I spent more than a decade representing working Australians across different jobs, employers and industries in both the public and the private sector. I've represented scientists, police officers, engineers, vets and pharmacists. Before that I spent a decade in government working on industrial relations policy and delivery. I've seen enterprise bargaining in action. Indeed, I've spent thousands of hours in bargaining negotiations—an explanation for the colour of my hair!
I have seen legitimate claims for wage rises, offered in good faith, stymied by red tape and systems that offered next to no path to agreement or effective, timely conciliation and/or arbitration. Over that time, I've seen a move away from secure forms of employment and the damage that that has created in the lives of too many of my constituents and their families. But this is not an experience that I can claim a monopoly over; many of my colleagues on this side have had a similar experience. I'm proud of this. It is an important strength of this government when it comes to industrial relations. We understand it because we have the lived experience of it.
The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Dickson, asked yesterday: how many members of the government have ever run a business? This line has been echoed by nearly every member of the opposition when they have gotten up to make a contribution. Well, I'd like to ask: how many of those opposite have ever worked to get a pay rise for Australian workers, whether that be through wage cases or enterprise bargaining? We know they didn't do it when in government. How many of those opposite are even aware of, or truly care about, the facts on the ground in enterprise bargaining in this country.
Let's look at some facts. Here is a fact: the approval of enterprise agreements is at an all-time low, leaving workers and employers in stasis. Here is another fact: it has never been easier to unilaterally cancel enterprise agreements, leaving Australian workers in limbo and mired in insecurity. And here is another fact: Australian wages have been stagnating for far too long, making life harder for every Australian and biting hard at the heart of the economy. These are indisputable facts that form part of the reality of industrial relations in this country. The reality is that our system is completely and utterly broken, and has been for some time. There is no balance in this system. There is no fairness. It works neither for employers nor for workers.
For the first time in a decade there is a plan on the table to fix this mess. Over the course of this debate we have heard much scaremongering from those opposite. Instead of engaging with the substance of what is on the table here and recognising that within this bill there is part of a pathway to higher wages and fairer working conditions for working Australians, those opposite have resorted to the only tactic they know: fear and division.
The previous government presided over a broken industrial relations system for nearly a decade. They had nearly a decade to do something—anything—to get wages moving for working Australians. But instead they actively made things worse by restricting the ability of working people to negotiate better wages and conditions, and now, when we put forward a plan to end the rot and bring positive change, those opposite are unable to muster any positive contribution. I don't think we need to hear more cheap attempts at a history lesson from the HR Nicholls textbook, although I think it's worth saying that the deliberate absence of conversation around the decade of cooperative industrial relations in the eighties is telling. I say to those opposite: get out of the way and let us get on with bringing fairness back to industrial relations.
This bill should come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber. We on the side have been talking about these problems for years. During the election we made no secret of the fact that we would tackle the crisis with enterprise bargaining and industrial relations if we won the election. We convened the Jobs and Skills Summit here at Parliament House to discuss these issues with unions and employers. That summit was the culmination of a series of smaller summits that were held right across Australia to discuss the challenges and to debate the solutions. Indeed, the federal member for Fenner and I convened a local summit here too, in the Main Committee Room, bringing employers, unions and civil society together.
We have been clear and transparent, and the fact that this debate is unfolding in the way that it is demonstrates a commitment to a more transparent and collaborative process of lawmaking—a process that will continue. It will continue because what is before us is too important and we cannot allow it to get lost in the miasma of some of the contributions that have been on offer.
At its heart, enterprise bargaining, done well, has the potential to lift wages, boost productivity and improve flexibility. Reforms will remove unnecessary limitations from the existing framework. Multi-employer bargaining is already contemplated by the act through three streams. The problem is it isn't working. We're not creating new streams of bargaining; we are varying the existing streams to make them work and to get wages moving. The prohibition already in the act on pattern bargaining will remain.
These changes are critical to help tackle the gender pay gap and promote greater harmony and collaboration between workers and employers. It's a far superior model to the award system. Enterprise bargaining as it stands is not widely available to feminised workforces or to small and medium sized businesses. Where enterprise bargaining is available, workers have few options to secure an above-inflation pay rise with unreachable access to arbitration, employers can't rely on greater productivity or flexibility and the entire experience leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of all involved.
Collective bargaining done right can transform our economy, but left to rot it causes so much damage. Those opposite don't seem to think so. They don't see a problem here. They are beholden to a master-servant conception of the workplace, and that fact should give all of us pause for thought. But despite what they think over there, bargaining is in disrepair. It's holding back wages, productivity and flexibility. It is holding the Australian economy back.
But there is a core principle at stake here, a principle that has been left to wither and rot. It is an indispensable principle that must be rescued and re-established. It is the most Australian of all principles—fairness. That is what's at stake here. Forget the scaremongering, the hand-wringing, the complaints. All this boils down to is bringing fairness back to both workers and employers. We will never have fairness until we fix this broken system. This is why we are here. This is a commitment we made to working families around our nation. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (17:52): Labor's proposed workplace changes presented in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Wages) Bill represent the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system since prior to the Hawke-Keating governments. In fact, they take us back to prior to the impressive reforms that they introduced. These were followed by the reforms of the Howard-Costello government that really set up our economy for the tremendous growth and prosperity that we've all enjoyed. This legislation is a reversal of that. The bill itself is called the 'secure jobs, better pay bill', but it's actually almost Orwellian in its title because, if anything, this will lead to less secure jobs and, in fact, it may well lead to lower pay rather than higher pay, which is their stated ambition. There are two pieces of data which support this conclusion. The first piece of data is looking at the budget papers themselves. I suggest to those opposite who are here, and there are many in the chamber: open up the budget that was introduced by Treasurer Chalmers just a few weeks ago. That budget itself says that real wages will decline over the next two years. That's what it says; you yourselves are admitting that, from this bill, real wages will decline while inflation continues to skyrocket along with the massive budget deficit continuing to increase. That's what it says.
The other piece of evidence that is worth examining is the evidence presented by Professor Mark Wooden from the University of Melbourne. He's done analysis of different systems across the world as to which systems have produced higher wages over the last few years, bearing in mind that across the Western world wages have been depressed over the last decade. But there have been distinctions between the systems, and what Professor Wooden found from his analysis is that those systems in developed economies which were the most decentralised and had enterprise focused bargaining frameworks have actually experienced the highest wage growth, whereas those systems which had the most centralised industrywide bargaining frameworks had the slowest growth. And he concluded that Australia was somewhere in between those two.
What this bill does is reverse the enterprise-bargaining framework which Hawke and Keating introduced and which has continued since, and chooses the pathway which, according to the University of Melbourne's Professor Wooten, puts us on a lower-wage-growth path. That's what it does, and that's why I say that this bill being called the 'secure jobs, better pay bill' is Orwellian, because that analysis itself says that this will actually lead to less pay for everyday Australians. And, certainly, on our side of the table, we don't want to see that. We want to see prosperity in this country and we want to see prosperity for everybody.
Dr Aly: You should love it then!
Mr TUDGE: I've pointed out those two facts and I appreciate that the opposition don't want to hear that. They don't want to look at their own budget figures and they certainly don't want to look at the analysis from Professor Wooten from the University of Melbourne, which shows centralised bargaining actually produces lower wage increases than enterprise bargaining does.
There have been tremendous concerns about this bill, particularly in relation to the pattern-bargaining provisions of the bill, right across the business community and, indeed, across the education sector as well—of course I have much to do with that as shadow education spokesperson. I know that the education sector, particularly the higher education sector, is concerned that the impacts of the bill will lead to pattern bargaining across universities. The universities themselves are large organisations that typically have thousands of staff, and sometimes many thousands of staff—130,000 altogether.
Government members interjecting—
Mr TUDGE: And quite rightly! Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I know they're interjecting again over on the other side. They're calling out; they don't want to hear what I have to say. Indeed, they don't want to hear what the higher education sector has to say. They pointed out that the enterprise model, which they have presently, takes into account the financial health of the university, the unique student cohorts, the research profiles and the geographic location, which all helps in aiding an enterprise-bargaining agreement. This is versus an industrywide agreement, which is what this bill would lean towards, where you can't take into account those unique circumstances. It is just purely ridiculous to say that a university in Port Macquarie is exactly the same as a university in Parkville. They're not; there are different circumstances, the cost of living is different, and there are different research priorities, geographies, student cohorts and the like. Quite rightly, those academic staff should be capable enough to bargain with those university leaders themselves rather than being told what to do.
Secondly, I would refer to what the business community more broadly has said. The business community has almost unanimously been critical of this bill. I will just point out a few comments, because I was here at question time and the minister was very proudly saying how he has consulted with everybody. I can tell him that he may have had meetings with them but he certainly didn't listen to them or act on what they said. I will read out what a few of them have said. First up is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, Andrew McKellar. He has warned that the compulsory multi-employer bargaining in this bill will lead to a seismic shift in Australia's workplace relations system, reversing decades of tripartite consensus. And he says that it will lead to more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust with their enterprises.
Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group said the proposed changes to Australia's workplaces risk taking the country down a path of more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust with their enterprises. The Business Council of Australia said:
Australians deserve a system that delivers higher wages and better jobs, with diverse businesses that can innovate, deliver the best services and products and grow the economy.
This will not achieve those outcomes, instead we are staring down the barrel of a more complex system that runs the risk of stifling innovation and fossilising the economy.
The COSBOA CEO says the legislation is a trojan horse, as emphasised by the CEO of ACCI, for the empowerment of unions in every workplace in Australia. I could just go on and on in relation to the business community sentiment.
There is one stakeholder, though, who has given a positive review of this bill, and I'm sure those opposite will be very pleased about this, because this person is a very big donor to them. It is none other than John Setka from the CFMMEU, the man who's probably been subject to more findings of breaking the law than any other union leader in Australian history. He has said he's very impressed by Tony Burke's bill—incredibly impressed. He's absolutely stoked about the bill, because he knows he'll now get into every single one of those businesses, creeping into those small businesses, into the tradie shops, into all the other smaller construction houses which presently are just getting on with the job, trying to do their job and provide good conditions for their employees.
This is not a good bill. It is being rushed through this parliament. It hasn't had the scrutiny it deserves, and it deserves to be voted down. It will do exactly the opposite of what it presents itself as. It will not secure more jobs. It will not secure better pay. We can be certain of that. To the contrary, we're going to get lower pay, we're going to get less-secure jobs and we're going to get more distrust between business and employees. It's almost a guarantee that we will have more strikes in this country. And it's almost a guarantee that prices are going to increase as well.
The government likes to say that they're doing everything they can to get on top of inflation. Ha! That's a joke. Almost everything they do is exacerbating inflationary pressures, and this will do that equally. So, this is not a good bill. It should be rejected. I haven't even touched on the abolition of the ABCC. In the past, when it was last abolished, that led to an increase of 56 per cent in disputes with the construction sector. For that, as well, the bill should be rejected. But overall it's not a good bill. It sets Australia back. It puts us back decades in terms of our industrial relations system and should be firmly rejected.
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (18:02): I stand here today very proud to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. We just heard the member for Aston say that this is not a good bill. Well, I believe it is a good bill, and all of us on this side believe that this is the right thing to do. It is a bill that will ensure dignity at the workplace. It's a bill that will ensure that wages keep up with inflation. And it's a bill that will give fairness at work. We've seen 10 years of the lowest wages in this country in terms of keeping up with inflation, under their watch. We saw 10 years of absolutely zero in this area. Those opposite were quite happy to keep wages very, very low while inflation soared through the roof.
This bill addresses many of the problems that were caused because of their watch for the last nine years and many of the problems in Australia's industrial relations systems that were raised at the Jobs and Skills Summit and through proper consultation. We were determined to get wages moving after 10 years of inaction by the former government. And we were determined to address the gender pay gap after 10 years during which this government did nothing at all and we saw that rise. We want to ensure that people who are doing such valuable work in the care economy, for example, are finally valued and paid adequately. And we want businesses and employers to work more closely together to achieve better and fairer terms and good conditions for all Australians. These are the things that we on this side of the House stand for.
As I said, I am proud of this. Yet all we hear from the opposition, as we just heard from the member for Aston, is scaremongering—words like 'Armageddon', 'militant unions', 'endless strikes' and 'the end of the world as we know it'. Anyone would think they're still living in the 1960s, fighting the Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis. We've moved on from that era. It's almost as though we're having the same scaremongering as they use over and over again during the climate debate. And we all remember, over the last nine years, the scaremongering that took place there. Australians saw through it then and Australians will see through it again. How can it be a bad thing that women and low-paid workers are paid equally?
How can it be a bad thing that our aged-care workers, early childhood educators, disability carers and cleaners are finally paid a decent wage? It's actually disrespectful to all those hardworking workers out there. It's disrespectful to all Australians, and it's even worse after we have been discussing the Respect@Work report in this place for days.
We on this side of the House are absolutely determined to promote job security, help close that gender pay gap, modernise the workplace bargaining system and get wages moving again. Under the previous government, wages were deliberately kept low and insecure work was encouraged. Labor is taking the opposite approach. We want to help workers get ahead.
Australia's current workplace relations framework is not working. Anyone can tell you that. It's not delivering a fair go to workers or productivity gains to employers. We've seen the lowest productivity this country has seen in the last 10 years. We need a strong economy that delivers for all Australians. We want to see more workers in good jobs, secure jobs, with fair pay and proper protections. We want workers to have a pathway to a better life and businesses to thrive. We know that if workers have more money in their pockets they will spend it on the essentials, which keep businesses going. It's not rocket science. The more money that workers have, the more that's spent in the community.
This bill will also ban pay secrecy clauses, expand access to flexible work arrangements and expressly prohibit harassment in the Fair Work Act. The bill will also bolster a worker's ability to recover unpaid entitlements, under the Fair Work small claims system, and ban job ads that advertise for below the relevant minimum pay rate. It will also modernise the bargaining system, which, according to all involved, is too complex and not working.
Now we hear that the legislation is rushed. That's what we're hearing from the other side. To be honest, tell that to the people who are currently struggling to choose between paying their bills, paying their rent and putting food on the table. Too many Australians are struggling with the rising cost of living and stagnant wages. Wages have been stagnant for 10 years in this nation, and we need to do something about it. That's what this bill does. After 10 years of an economic policy that kept wages deliberately low, it's about time we started acting. And that's what we're doing.
We've consulted extensively in the months since we were elected. We've consulted with the committee on industrial relations and with state and territory officials. It was discussed at the Jobs and Skills Summit. It's clear and transparent. Most importantly, we took it to an election. This was discussed before the election. The then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, and the shadow minister for industrial relations, now industrial relations minister, spoke about it extensively. We outlined to the Australian public what we would do in government, and this is what we are doing.
This bill will ensure the Fair Work Commission is properly resourced to assist businesses that want to engage with the enterprise bargaining system but have not been able to do so to date. There will be resources for them. We'll continue to consult, we'll continue to work with workers and businesses, because the times have moved. We're no longer in the era that those on the other side are still stuck in—the 1960s, fighting the Cold War—because we're committed to these reforms. We're committed to secure work and a decent wage that keeps up with the cost of living.
Australian workers have waited for a decade for strong wage growth, and it hasn't come. They've been waiting for 10 years. It was inaction from the government over the last 10 years. Australian workers expect action, and that's what we are doing. They deserve a break, especially given the current economic situation and rampant global inflation. Australians can't wait any longer for a decent increase to their wages. We don't want to waste any time before making improvements to the workplace relations systems—so it can work better for everyone, so it can deliver decent wages, secure work and respect at work.
Australian workers have been waiting for 10 years for pay rises, while, at the same time, the cost of living has been going up. The cost of living has been going up and their wages have remained stagnant because of the inaction. It suited the government. It's their mantra. It's within their DNA to keep wages low. It's within their DNA to attack workers. We've seen it in here. I've been here long enough to have seen many, many speeches, and every time anything comes up about industrial relations, it's about putting a lid on it, it's about keeping them quiet, it's about not allowing the industrial movement to move forward and have good engagement with businesses and with workers so it is able to come up with a solution that ensures that people have a decent wage and decent work conditions.
As I said, we don't want to waste any more time before making these improvements to the workplace relations system. Australian workers have been waiting for a long time for this bill. This bill will ensure that things are put in place that will increase wages and will give them the respect that they deserve at work and the bargaining powers that they require. Surely, if now is not the time, when? The time is now. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (18:11): I have to admit that the name of this bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, caused me to raise my eyebrows. You have to applaud the government for simplifying this legislation down to four words that, without context, sound fantastic. After all, who doesn't want secure jobs and better pay? I'm all for it. If this legislation even remotely delivered on what the name suggested, I'd vote for it. I will always do what I think is right and in the best interests of my community and I consider all legislation carefully and on its merits, and I'm concerned about this.
While there are some positive aspects to the bill, it falls short. It's a large and complex piece of legislation, and we've had it for just a few weeks—not nearly enough time to appropriately scrutinise a 250-page bill that also has a 260-page explanatory memorandum. It also doesn't leave the necessary time for me to consult widely with my community as to what this would mean for them.
There are over 37,000 small businesses in Tasmania, 30,000 of which are employers. They make up more than 96 per cent of all businesses in Tasmania and provide more than half of the private sector employment in our state. In my electorate of Bass alone, there are more than 3,000 small businesses and, as their federal representative, it's my job to ensure that government legislation that best supports them is in place.
Without a doubt, I would say that almost all employers and employees in my northern Tasmanian region would not have the faintest idea what this bill will mean for them. After a tumultuous few years emerging from the pandemic and at a time of growing inflation, businesses are struggling with staff shortages and rapidly increasing power costs. I can't understand why the government wants to thrust these workplace changes upon the hardworking small business owners in my electorate. What work has Labor done to engage the business owners in electorates across the country? Why is there such a rush to push this through, if not just to appease the unions?
This bill creates drastic changes to our industrial relations system, and time needs to be taken to carefully examine what the government is proposing here, and employers need to be given the opportunity to understand what it means for them. I know from talking to small businesses in my electorate, particularly those in the retail or hospitality space, that their focus right now is on ensuring they'll have a solid Christmas period that will help set them up for the quieter winter months. They're wanting to ensure that the demand is there—an increasing challenge, with people worried about the cost of living—while also wanting to meet that demand through the hiring of necessary staff. If I talk to any small business owner right now, what I hear about the most is the struggle to get staff. What they don't need on their plate is a new and onerous workplace relations bill that they don't have the time or resources to wade through. If they don't know what this is or what it means for them, this is concerning.
Just a few weeks ago the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Industry Group joined forces to caution against this legislation, warning that it will have significant ramifications that raise the risk of higher unemployment, increased strike action and damage to our economic security. They also warned the government to slow down and consult more widely and meaningfully. Jennifer Westacott, CEO of the Business Council of Australia, said the following:
We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment.
Australia is in the midst of a global economic storm and there's no room for error if we want to secure our economic future, we have to tread carefully.
Innes Willox from AiG warned:
The high-risk proposals as they currently stand will create enormous difficulties for business and carry unintended consequences that will cost jobs and cause serious damage to our economy. We need a workplace relations system that is fair for all parties and delivers sustainable benefits to employees. We must avoid extreme changes that risk imposing damaging strikes and harm on the community and businesses. A responsible approach to changes to workplace laws is crucial. We urge the government to take a breath and avoid rushing to introduce such extreme changes to our workplace relations system.
Will Cassidy, the chief executive of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce—one of the oldest and most successful chambers in the country—has also expressed concern over the legislation, telling me, 'We weren't consulted or asked to give feedback on this, and it does feel like it needs wider consultation with the business community.' Robert Mallett, CEO of the Tasmanian Small Business Council, has also expressed his concern on the legislation and the process undertaken by the government, saying, 'We should have had a communitywide conversation to discuss and debate any changes to an amended IR bill—not an election—rather than some rushed attempt to make changes to be seen to be doing something.' He continues: 'There is need for more flexibility, not more complexity. Small-business people are already doing as much as they can to be flexible with their staff because they desperately need to hang onto them. Arrangements between staff and employers are already under fire because of black letter of the legislation, which doesn't account for the personalised nature of small businesses. This opportunity should be about modernising the awards rather than adding another mechanism for negotiating agreements.'
I note that Minister Burke said in question time today that extensive consultation had been done, and he listed all the organisations he had met with regard to the legislation. But I would say to the minister and to the government: consultation isn't just telling people what you're going to do; it's about listening to their response, and that's the part that you've so far failed to do. The role of government is to put in place frameworks that provide the lever by which business and employers can prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. What this bill proposes leads to is an unstable environment, creating more strikes and job losses. We all want to see Australians in secure work, should they seek it, and with higher wages, particularly at a time when we're seeing drastic increases in cost-of-living expenses.
I acknowledge that people in my electorate are some of the lowest paid in the country, and they deserve higher pay. Irrespective of those noble aims, what of the unintended consequences? Unlike many here, I can actually speak to what it's like to get by as a casual worker, and I don't mean in high school or while studying at university. I've had casual, contract and insecure employment my whole working life until recently, although I do joke that, while well-paid, being the member for Bass is arguably insecure. At one stage I was juggling casual work, single-motherhood and studying, so I acutely understand the pressures of needing to pay the bills without having solid financial security and certainty. The member for Lalor spoke very passionately about this and said, 'If you don't wave this legislation through, you don't care.' Of course we care, but this isn't the way to do it. I understand and support higher wages, but I've also lived through situations as an employee in the hospitality industry when my employer decided not to open because they couldn't cover the employee costs. It's no good getting a higher hourly rate if you get fewer hours. It's also no good receiving a higher wage only to lose your job if your employer folds. We have to get the balance right.
As I've listened to speeches by this government on the legislation, with much being made about a feminised workplace, I noted there are also many female business owners in my electorate. They're bright, energetic, hardworking employers, many with a majority of female employees. How is this legislation truly creating the necessary framework to help any business owner thrive and employ more staff—particularly in the current environment, where it's a struggle for employers to recruit and retain good employees? The multi-employer bargaining aspect of this bill will not make workplaces more productive or sustain higher wages. In fact, as the Productivity Commission points out, multi-employer bargaining would undermine the productivity benefits of enterprise bargaining by imposing one-size-fits-all agreements on groups of businesses, preventing more productive businesses from attracting more productive workers, and removing the incentive for productivity improvements.
Where's the support for small businesses who don't have the financial means to engage the necessary legal or HR support needed to engage in multi-employer bargaining?
And where's the power for employees if multi-employer agreements cannot be voted on by employees without the permission of bargaining representatives essentially giving unions a right of veto? Small business has often been described as the engine room of the Australian economy, so why is Labor doing everything they can to slow that engine down and cause irretrievable damage at such an uncertain time in the economy?
There are some good aspects of the bill. Who doesn't want to end the gender pay gap? Of course we should be looking to do this, but it needs to be done thoughtfully. On the whole there are serious adverse consequences, as raised not only by our side of the parliament but by the entire crossbench, with all holding concerns over the rush to push this through. I would encourage the government to consider trying to advance the non-contentious parts of the bill and spend some more time consulting with the business community across Australia, including in my electorate of Bass.
(Quorum formed)
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (18:23): There's one thing that people contacting me about how hard it is to pay their bills already know. They know they haven't had a pay rise for a really long time. In fact, the people who are in their 20s and even in their early 30s might never have experienced a significant pay rise except as a result of their own efforts to upskill or take on higher duties or more responsibility. That's particularly the case for people working in highly feminised industries: the caring industries, where people are caring for someone who's old, caring for someone who's sick, caring for someone with a disability or caring for someone who's very young. They might have insecure work, which might be as a casual but could also be someone who's working in the gig economy, someone who's with labour hire or someone with new forms of insecurity as a part-time employee or on a rolling fixed-term contract, which effectively amounts to a permanent probation period. They haven't seen any increases that are sufficient to keep up with the rising cost of living, really just living simply. They're paying a mortgage or rent, covering their bills, paying for their health care, putting food on the table. What we talk about as the cost of living is actually the gap between their income and the prices they're being asked to pay, and we all know prices are going up.
At a time when the pressures of global inflation are hitting every household, our workplace laws simply have not kept up with making sure that wages keep up as well. With inflation running at 7.3 per cent and wage increases at 2.6 per cent there's a gap, and every day the impact of a decade of wage stagnation continues. It's felt by households trying to make ends meet. We all know that supressing wage growth was a deliberate design feature of the previous government's management of the economy. We know that because the previous government's own finance minister Mathias Cormann explained that strategy clearly for everyone to hear. People were also assured by the previous government that, when unemployment went down, wages would go up. In fact, in the previous government's budgets there were predictions of wage increases, and they never came to pass. Despite a near record low unemployment rate of 3.5 per cent, inflation is fast outpacing wages growth, and that's why we have workers falling behind. With some exceptions, such as those who are very well placed to bargain strongly on their own behalf, most workers are caught in the pincer movement of flat wages and price rises.
You can't seriously claim to care about the cost of living without supporting a lift in wages. But what we've heard through the course of the debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill because so many of us have been in here for such extended periods are the contradictions coming from the other side and their inability to keep to a single narrative. On the one hand they say, 'This isn't going to do anything to help lift wages,' and on the other hand they say, 'We don't need to lift wages.' It's been a joy to have the opportunity to hear the inconsistency that is coming from those opposite.
I think we recognise that the urgency of getting wages moving is most acute in feminised industries, where that gender pay gap is sitting at 14.1 per cent. The system needs to be recalibrated for all workers. Australia's current workplace relations framework isn't working to deliver a fair go for workers or, quite frankly, productivity gains for employers. This legislation will help with job security. It'll help close the gender pay gap and it will help get wages moving. The title, 'secure jobs, better pay', does sum up the key objectives of the legislation. I don't want to oversell what I think can be achieved. It will take time for this bill to result in improvements in workplaces and pay increases in the pockets of Australians. That's one of the reasons we cannot waste a moment in getting this through our parliament. As the Prime Minister said today, not everyone is going to love everything about it, but we know that this is a great step to getting more secure jobs and better pay for Australians.
Let's look at some of the elements. In the design of these reforms we've deliberately focused on the needs of lower-paid and feminised workforces. Everyone knows workers in feminised sectors are underpaid, overworked, undervalued and often in insecure work. This bill will put job security and gender equality at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making processes, where they'll be given equal weight to the other objects of the commission in making its decisions. That will lead to real improvements in pay packets. We'll also strengthen access to flexible work arrangements, so workers with caring responsibilities can better balance work and their caring role. The bill will ban pay secrecy clauses so that companies can't stop staff talking about their pay, if they want to. I think we can guess who is going to benefit most from that. Those who will benefit most will be women because these clauses have long been used to conceal gender pay differences.
The bill also implements one of the Respect@Work recommendations by prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace and providing a new dispute resolution mechanism so that all workers have access to quick, informal dispute resolution before the specialist workplace relations tribunal. It's a process that we could have seen in place years ago, had the previous government bothered. There's also strengthened protection against discrimination—for instance, breastfeeding mums—to align the Fair Work Act with existing Commonwealth antidiscrimination law. So it really does start to shift the dial a little bit further for women.
Another key change that will help women, particularly, but not limited to women, is putting a limit on fixed-term contracts for the same role. The number of workers on fixed-term contracts has gone up by more than 50 per cent since 1998. More than half of all employees on fixed-term contracts are women, and more than 40 per cent of fixed-term employees have been with their employer for two years or more.
Under this bill there's a limit on the use of those fixed-term contracts, for the same role, beyond two years or two consecutive contracts, whichever's shorter. If these rules are breached, the contract will remain valid but its expiry date will not. I want to be really clear. There are exemptions that allow employers to use fixed-term contracts for legitimate purposes. I think what we're seeing, though, is that many of these changes create a level playing field so the good employers are not undercut by the not so good.
In order to do that, another element is that this bill gives immediate effect to recommendations of the 2019 Migrant Workers' Taskforce. Yes, that was brought down three years ago. I want to thank the advocacy of migrant workers and their unions who I met with in his place. It will now be unlawful to advertise a job for less than the applicable minimum rate. That shouldn't be revolutionary. That is something that provides fairness across the board, and this whole parliament should be supportive. It will also provide greater ability to recover unpaid entitlements by increasing the cap on small claims under the Fair Work Act. The current threshold forces many workers to pursue pay claims through a more complex court process. Again, this is a reasonable and fair change that fair-minded people will not hesitate to support.
I want to touch on the issue of the impact of this on business, particularly small business. As someone who was in business for 25 years before coming to this place—I grew up in my dad's small business—the ability of our local small and micro businesses to thrive is really important to me but also to my local economy and community. I have no doubt of the ability of those opposite to spread fear amongst small businesses, and I've heard ill-informed commentary in this place about how we'll all be ruined.
Small business is facing tough times, and we're well aware of that. Finding and keeping great people is one of the challenges. But this contains specific rules that mean small businesses' circumstances will be taken into account. We know they will be relevant to determinations. It recognises that small business is different from big business and can't always have the same conditions as big business. There is also support for small business to really get their head around this. This is a criticism I've heard from those opposite but, in fact, we've provided an additional $7.9 million to help the Fair Work Ombudsman's employer advisory service. We care about small business. This is going to work for everybody.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (18:33): I rise to oppose this legislation. The reason I do that is I believe very strongly that this is not in the best interests of either workers or employers. I have taken every opportunity to listen to the contributions that have been made in this debate, and I've listened very closely to the contributions that have been made by my colleagues. There have been some excellent contributions, but I particularly noticed the contribution made by the member for Bass, the coalition member who spoke directly before me on this bill.
She made some excellent points. I would encourage members in this place to read, through the Hansard, her contribution and the point that she was making, at one stage during her speech, in relation to her time working as a casual in the hospitality sector. She spoke about the time that her boss was unable to open simply because he couldn't afford to pay the wages on that day. The point that the member for Bass made is that there's very little point in having an increase in your hourly rate if you are working fewer hours. It is a very valid point that she has made.
I've also listened very closely to the contributions of the government members. I've listened to them. I've read them. I've watched the speeches. I'm very concerned about the assertions that have been made in what is clearly a significant industrial relations reform—probably bigger than anything that we have seen in decades. What concerns me the most at this point is the haste in which Labor is moving to implement such wide-ranging and wide-reaching changes that are, quite frankly, just going to upend the industrial relations systems in this country.
This legislation is, in fact, the very last thing that we need at a time of significant economic challenges and the rising pressures that exist on household budgets. Clearly, the changes that are being proposed are very ideologically driven, and I don't believe they are in the national interest. At a time of growing inflation, of businesses struggling with staff shortages and rapidly increasing power costs, this legislation, in my very strong view, will make a bad situation worse.
As Innes Willox, the Chief Executive of the national employer association Ai Group, said in his statement on the bill, 'The legislation is fundamentally flawed and needs to be rethought and reworked.' The coalition firmly believes that the government needs to go back to the drawing board. Despite the government's claims, there seems to be no evidence that the reforms that they are proposing will deliver higher wages. In fact, based on feedback from employers, it would have the exact opposite effect. Employers are warning that it will lead to more strikes and potentially more job losses. In fact, business groups across Australia—small, medium and large—have been united in their opposition to this bill, and particularly to multi-employer bargaining. It is a return to the old-fashioned collective bargaining which modern economies have been progressing away from. It is essentially a gift to the union movement. Many people see it as payback for the steadfast support Labor has received from militant unions over many years, and especially during the election campaign. I can see why people draw that conclusion, because it's hard to see why else the government is making these retrograde changes.
The reality of this bill, if it goes forward in its current form, would be more strikes and job losses, small businesses having to deal with unions when they never before and potential delays in wage rises because of increased complexity. By undermining competition, this bill means Australians will have fewer choices but face higher costs. It sets Australia back decades. The ultimate effect will be to force prices even higher and further increase the cost of living. As one of my local Chamber of Commerce presidents described it, 'There's plenty that they need to do out there without crippling business with archaic rules that will see only the rich employers able to survive.' Making an already complex system more complex is never a good idea, especially for small- and medium-business owners that are under-resourced and struggling to keep their heads above water.
I'm acutely aware of the challenges the system can present for different sectors. As a strong advocate for small business—and I've staked the claim before in this place that the Gold Coast is the small business capital of Australia—I'm deeply concerned about the impact of this legislation. On the coast we have a diverse range of businesses and that includes tourism and hospitality, retail, building and construction, and a strong manufacturing base. The majority are small to medium and many are family owned and they stand to be the hardest hit by this legislation. As Mark McKenzie of the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association said when talking about the impacts on the variety of businesses within his industry:
Any action that results in applying identical workplace changes across all these businesses reduces business diversity and potentially weakens the capacity of small businesses to compete with larger businesses. The resultant marginalisation of small family-owned businesses risks ceding competition to a smaller number of large businesses and a reduction of price competition intensity in the national fuel retail market.
He went on to point out that the legislation:
appears to fail the core objective of the National Jobs and Skills Summit in that it prioritises the goal of lifting wages above the equally important goal of delivering the business productivity gains needed to fund such wage increases.
I think that is a really concerning point.
The overwhelming number of issues in Labor's bill relate to bargaining and particularly the provisions relating to multi-employer bargaining. Labor's bill expands the single-interest stream by allowing the Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interests to bargain together where it is in the public interest for them to do so. Businesses are rightly concerned about the common-interest provision being so broad as to be ridiculous. This will allow unions to apply to compel employers to bargain together if the move has the support of the majority of employees. This is backed by the right to strike. Being coerced into bargaining based on some vague common-interest test is fundamentally unfair. This is not bargaining; it is compulsion and it is fundamentally unfair. It means that once an employer becomes part of a multi-employer agreement it can no longer pursue a single-enterprise bargain.
So, instead of improving choice and flexibility for employers and employees, this legislation actually limits choices and compels businesses. How is that an improvement for anyone?—except, of course, the unions who want more power and more say over businesses and the private sector employees, who have overwhelmingly chosen not to be members of a union.
Given that the building and construction industry is one of the Gold Coast's largest employers, I'm also deeply concerned that this bill effectively hands this sector to the CFMMEU. The damaging move to abolish the industry watchdog, the ABCC, has the potential to lead to economic loss of around $47.5 billion by 2030, according to a report by Ernst & Young in April this year. I have spoken in this place before about the importance of the ABCC. Once again, it is being abolished for purely ideological reasons, and that is clearly not in the national interest. I'm concerned that, by the deliberate abolition of the last line of defence between construction employers and a militant union, we will see building costs skyrocket, businesses fold and jobs lost.
For these and for many other reasons, I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in opposing this legislation. And I do implore the government to go back to the drawing board and to rewrite this unfair bill, which will only compound and worsen the serious economic issues our nation is facing.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle—Deputy Speaker) (18:43): I am very pleased to stand this evening to speak in support of the government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. We all know, on this side of the House, that good secure work should be able to pay your bills. It seems like a fundamental principle that we should all be able to support and want citizens to be able to enjoy.
Labor's been the voice of workers for over 130 years, so it should come as no surprise that we might want to pursue legislation that delivers fair pay for people. Indeed, the Labor Party, as anyone who's read our history would know, was formed originally to represent the interests of workers, and that's exactly what we're doing again in this chamber today. It's a part of our DNA. Decades of struggle and suppression in the 19th century motivated workers to establish the Labor electoral leads and to ensure that they had political representation, and that is all for the betterment of Australian working men and women.
Now, here we are again in 2022, and it's a Labor government that is undertaking that important work of being a voice for Australian working men and women after the Liberals' deliberate plan to keep wages down for almost a decade now. It's extraordinary, listening to some of the contributions and the faux outrage on a bill that seeks to deliver both secure employment for people and better wages and conditions. It seems hard to fathom, really, that you wouldn't support this. But if you have lived with an ideology that says trickle-down economics is a truth then perhaps you might have some difficulty with the concept—and with reflecting back on the last 10 years of history here, where increases in productivity, and all of the things that workers were asked to do, have not resulted at the end of the day in any kind of benefit in terms of delivering a better pay packet for those going home at the end of a shift or the working week.
There has been an insistence of Liberal ideology around the notion that low unemployment rates would push up wages. We have a lot of evidence to suggest that was not true—a lot of evidence. We know that the idea of trickle-down economics, that businesses and people doing well at the top would somehow deliver great benefits to the workers, alongside increased productivity and boosting of wages, didn't work either. These are not truths. Shamefully, all of those promises resulted in nothing but a wasted decade, and wages growth remained unacceptably low. Workers really can't afford to wait any longer, and nor should they. That's why this bill is delivering on more secure jobs, better pay and a fairer workplace relations system. It's a commitment we made to the Australian people throughout the campaign. There are no surprises in this bill; we're honouring our word. I think the Australian people will be somewhat relieved to have a government that is honouring its word.
This secure jobs, better pay bill is going to fix what has become a very broken bargaining system in Australia. It will get wages moving again by expanding access to enterprise bargaining and multi-employer bargaining systems. It will abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission. Again, Labor has long been on the record seeking to abolish both of those organisations. It's a bill that will protect workers by banning job ads that advertise for below the relevant minimum wage. It's astonishing that anyone in this parliament would object to a guarantee that you don't go out trying to seek workers on the basis of paying them less then what they are entitled to receive. There is a minimum wage for a very good reason. As I said, this bill will help protect workers by banning job ads that advertise for below minimum pay rates. It will ban secrecy clauses and expand access to flexible work arrangements, because workers that want to discuss pay equity in their workplace should not be prohibited from doing so by their employment contracts.
Transparency is essential to reform—but, you know what? It's absolute essential to delivering a gender pay equity outcome in this nation as well. In addition to all of those measures that I've just referred to, the bill is designed to ensure that some of the most undervalued workers in this country, workers in female dominated professions like health care, aged care, disability support and early childhood education get the pay rises and the support that they deserve. These are the workers, and mostly women workers, who've long been forgotten, who have been missed out in so much of the discussion around increased productivity measures and delivering for the nation. They've worked their guts out for a very long time and got us all through the pandemic, and they deserve more than thanks at this moment. They deserve secure jobs and better pay. Australia's national gender pay gap is currently at a very unacceptable 14.1 per cent.
I don't think anybody in this House would be proud of this figure. I'm sure even members opposite, who have ideological opposition to some aspects of this bill, as I understand it, would be hard pressed to suggest that a stubborn, persistent gender pay gap of 14.1 per cent is okay. On average, a woman working full time is earning $263.90 less than a man working full time in Australia. Again, who says that's an acceptable outcome? Certainly not anybody on this side of the House. Let's be very clear. This is not a choice that women make. We don't choose to enter into undervalued, underpaid professions. It's not a conscious decision women are making. It's just that women have been fighting for decades now, I think it would be very fair to say, for equal pay and conditions. It's a very long history in our nation.
This bill joins a long line of vital reform work, including the national minimum wage and equal pay cases of 1969 and 1972, the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984, the establishment of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency in 1986 and improvements in the Fair Work Act in 2009, just to name a few. This bill is a combination of relentless advocacy and campaigning by women workers, their unions, gender equity advocates, academics and countless women in this very building. And a big shout-out to the Hunter workers in my electorate of Newcastle who have been at the forefront of this campaign every step of the way.
I am proud to be part of a Labor government where 52 per cent of our party room is comprised of women, and that's a government party room. Women aren't an afterthought for the Australian Labor Party; we are part of every decision and every policy. That's why our policies create a better future for all Australians, not just a select few. Being a voice for workers is core business for Labor, and secure jobs and better pay is good for working people, it's good for business and it's good for our nation.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (18:53): This is a very bad bill, which will lead to more strikes and job losses, as we saw in the 1970s, and which will allow unions into small businesses that have never had to deal with them before. It will undermine competition so Australians have fewer choices but face higher costs or will force up prices and increase the cost of living and unfairly target small businesses because these changes will be complicated and expensive, and small businesses don't have human resources departments that can wade through complex changes. Business groups—small, medium and large—across Australia are united in their opposition to the changes, particularly to multi-employer bargaining. I want to highlight, in my contribution, several troubling aspects of this bill.
The first is multi-employer bargaining. Today, the single-interest employer authorisation bargaining stream is a voluntary process under which employers with a single interest, which is very tightly defined, can opt to make an application to the minister and the Fair Work Commission to bargain together. Labor's bill substantially changes this by making it compulsory and by significantly broadening the types of employers who fall under this stream and who may now be compelled to bargain together. Because Labor's bill retains the ability of employees to take industrial action, at the same time as allowing a broader range of employers to be compelled to bargain together, the bill significantly increases the risk of multisector industrial action.
Compelling a broad range of employers to bargain together will have a particularly devastating impact on small and medium businesses. It will require small-business owners, who almost always work in the business themselves, to spend a significant amount of time away from their work negotiating a joint bargaining position with the other employers, including those with fundamentally different businesses, and then negotiating with employee and union representatives, all of whom will have significantly more time to dedicate to this processes.
The outcome of the bargaining process will be a multi-employer agreement that will undoubtedly take a one-size-fits-all approach. It will not be relevant to the particular requirements of the business and will, therefore, cause operational difficulties in the future—for example, because of working hours or rosters that do not suit all businesses. A collective agreement which is ill-suited to the circumstances of a particular business will significantly constrain how the business owner can manage the business and, in turn, may very well threaten the viability of the business.
The bill also involves the imposition of significantly more red tape and regulatory burden on business, including small businesses. The changes to the rules regarding flexible working arrangements will be particularly burdensome. Under the Fair Work Act as it stands today, under section 65, an employee has the right to request flexible working arrangements. That's a perfectly sensible and desirable thing. The employer can only refuse if there are reasonable business grounds to do so. The employer must provide written reasons for the refusal and must respond within 21 days. There is no ability for an employee to contest the basis for the employer's refusal, but, of course, the employer must demonstrate reasonable business grounds.
Under the bill disputes over flexible work arrangement requests will be dealt with by the Fair Work Commission, which may resolve the dispute by arbitration and may make orders that an employer grant the employee's original request, or make other specified changes to the employee's working arrangements. This is a significant change and one that is unprecedented in Australia's workplace relations history. It effectively makes the Fair Work Commission the final decision-maker in how an employer manages their own workplace arrangements. This means that if an eligible worker requests flexible working hours or other arrangements, such as working from home, the employer will be legally bound to try to reach an agreement. The impact on all businesses—but in particular on small businesses which do not have the time, money or resources to deal with the change—is that employers are now going to have their working arrangements determined by a third party, the Fair Work Commission.
By giving the Fair Work Commission the power to make a binding decision, Labor is effectively making the Fair Work Commission a co-manager of any business which is subject to these provisions. This stands in sharp contrast to the much more sensible arrangements which apply today, under which the Fair Work Commission sets a safety net of minimum standards and ensures that parties comply with their obligations. The Fair Work Commission, under the arrangements that apply today, only acts as a final decision-maker when the parties have requested it to do so.
There are numerous other aspects of this bill that hand excessive powers to the unions and to the Fair Work Commission. Firstly, under this bill unions are able to compel employers to bargain. Today, unions cannot initiate bargaining without the agreement of the employer or after obtaining a majority support determination which proves that the majority of employees wish to commence bargaining. Under this bill, unions will be able to initiate bargaining automatically once a request to bargain has been sent to the employer, provided that the employer had been covered by an enterprise agreement that expired within the past five years, and the proposed agreement will replace the expired agreement; the making of the earlier agreement did not cause a single-interest employer authorisation to cease to operate; and the proposed agreement will cover the same or substantially the same group of employees as the earlier agreement.
Once a request has been made by the union, three important consequences flow. First, the employer is compelled to comply with good-faith bargaining obligations, which include, amongst other things, attending meetings at reasonable times, considering and responding to bargaining proposals in a timely manner and disclosing relevant information in a timely manner. No matter that the business may be pitching for the biggest contract it has ever had the opportunity to win, no matter that there may be significant sales opportunities which the business is seeking to win to build its prosperity and provide additional employment opportunities—you must now comply with the timetable set by the Fair Work Commission, which is not interested in any of those matters. And, as is characteristic of much of the rhetoric we hear from the Labor Party, the profitability of the business is just taken for granted. It's just assumed. It's not something that has to be worried about! All of the focus is on how the boundlessly deep pockets of employers should be opened and shaken out. It's perhaps not surprising that that is the perspective of most on the opposite side of this chamber, because most of their careers have been spent as union officials or shakedown merchants. That's the grim reality that underpins the Labor Party's approach to these matters.
The second consequence of one of these requests being made by a union is that compulsory arbitration is then available and that the employees can take protected industrial action. This change gives more power to the unions, including the power to initiate bargaining without demonstrating that the majority of employees wish to bargain, and that is a very troubling development.
Third, the way that things work today, parties cannot ordinarily apply to the commission seeking a binding decision on what terms should or should not be included in a collective agreement. But all that changes under Labor's bill. Under this bill, where there is 'no reasonable prospect of an agreement being reached', a bargaining representative—read 'union official'—is able to apply to the Fair Work Commission for an intractable bargaining declaration. Once such a declaration is made, the Fair Work Commission must either arbitrate the outstanding matters between the parties or provide the parties with a postdeclaration negotiating period to agree on terms, after which the Fair Work Commission must arbitrate the outstanding matters between the parties. So, for the first time under the Fair Work Act, we have the introduction of unilateral arbitration into enterprise bargaining—that is, a scenario where one party can effectively disagree to the claims made in bargaining and seek to have terms imposed on all parties by way of arbitration.
In the remaining time, I should also note that this bill abolishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which will expose many more businesses to the tender mercies of the CFMEU coming round with a few blokes who, when they're not involved in union matters, are enthusiastic bikies, carrying baseball bats and other means of persuasion which they are notorious for using. That is the grim reality. Sadly—it's no laughing matter—businesses around this country can expect the kind of thuggery and intimidation that the CFMEU is notorious for and this government is wilfully turning a blind eye to. This is a very bad bill, it is a retrograde step and it will take our economy backwards.
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (19:03): The golden thread that unites the very first conservatives, those who were elected to the first parliament in this federation, to those who occupy the opposition benches in this parliament is their complete contempt for unions, for organised labour for any attempt to bring into this House legislation which improves the organising power, the bargaining power or the substantive rights of Australian workers. Much has changed in conservative politics since the very first conservatives were elected to represent people in this House. But the thing that unites the very first conservatives and this sorry lot over there is their contempt for organised labour, their contempt for unions and their contempt for the labour movement.
Because this debate concerns industrial relations, the instinctive reaction of every coalition conservative speaker is to demonise unions and their role in society. Well, I want to do something different. I just want to tell a story about a man—my friend, mentor—a gentlemen by the name of Nando Lelli. He was a bloody legend, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of men and women who are alive in the Illawarra today because of his work. Sadly, he passed away in the early hours of Sunday morning, but his legacy lives on. He was born in Ascoli in Italy in 1931. He came to this country in 1957 with nothing, but he leaves behind a rich legacy. He led the Port Kembla branch of the Federated Ironworkers Union through the turbulence and turmoil of the 1970s and 1980s. Whether he was a delegate on the site or at the bargaining table or in a tribunal, he held a commanding presence.
He's been described as a man who was impossible to ignore and difficult to dislike—very true. Dan Walton, the current secretary of the Australian Workers Union, successor to the Federated Ironworkers Association, remembers him as 'a shining example to all the union movement', and that is so true. He was a formidable negotiator. He was a clever industrial strategist. He was a genuine people person. I'd heard Nando long before I knew him. When I was a kid growing up in the Illawarra he was a regular voice on radio and on television. You could wake up in the morning to a community service notice, the voice of Nando Lelli advising people there was a meeting at the north gate. I didn't even know where the north gate was. I'd have been a preschool kid. There would be a notice on the radio in Nando's voice, or authorised by Nando, advising people that there was a prework meeting or a stop-work meeting at this gate or that gate at the steelworks.
He was principled, he was kind, he was generous and he was resolute. I first met him in the early 1980s, and he was a legend even in those days. He was very patient with this impertinent young activist and he answered questions and was generous with his time, providing mentorship and patient example. His call to action was the safety standards that existed in the then BHP steelworks in the Illawarra in the mid-1970s. It was a dangerous place to work. Too often men went to work and didn't come home—a very dangerous place to work. This motivated Nando, who'd seen too many of his work colleagues fail to return home from work, and on too many occasions he and his colleagues had to knock on the door of a widow and a family and explain that their husband had passed away at work.
So he organised the workforce. In fact, he took over the then branch of the union because he thought they were not doing enough to look after workers in the workplace. Because it was such a multicultural workplace he ensured that there was a representative on his branch committee of every ethnicity in the workplace, and that was quite a task; it looked like the United Nations. Steadily, through industrial action, through steadfast negotiations and through their own direct action they raised the standards of occupational health and safety in the Illawarra steelworks to a point where today they are actually an example not just to the country but to the rest of the world. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of workers who are alive today because of the animating force of Nando Lelli.
And it wasn't just in work health and safety. In the early 1980s the steel industry throughout the country and around the world went through a massive change. In fact, the year before I left school around 13,000 people from the Port Kembla steelworks were made redundant. It's the reason I became a lawyer and not a boilermaker. My career path would have been into the steelworks. It was Nando's job to negotiate on behalf of this disrupted workforce an arrangement with both the employers and the government to ensure that there was an industry and a regional transition for those workers whose jobs were lost. And 13,000, in a small community of less than 200,000 back in the mid 1980s, was a significant blow to the workforce. Nando knew that you could not hold back time. So the best thing that he could do was to negotiate generous separation payments and new restructuring and training programs for those who left the steelworks.
There were many people sitting alongside me in class at university who were former steelworkers, because the genius of the arrangement they put in place was that you could take the redundancy package or you could take an employer and government supported pathway into university and have a wage paid and your university and your tuition paid, and you could convert yourself and provide a new career path for yourself. This was the genius of Nando and his colleagues, ensuring that there were not only redundancy payments but a new life and a new opportunity and new pathways for those workers. They were heady days. We look back at it now and think it was all obvious. It was leadership and principle of men like Nando Lelli that led to that occurring.
I listen to debates like the one I have just heard, and I hear people stand at this dispatch box, and their instinctive reaction is to say, 'Labor's bringing a bill about workplace relations and it's about union rights and workers' rights and about creating power in the workplace.' All they can muster up is an impassioned speech based on untruths—based on a perception which is, at best, 30 to 40 years out of date—that have absolutely no bearing on needs or what's going on in a workplace today.
Less than 30 metres from where I'm standing now, there are gathered in the government caucus room 30 or 40 early childhood educators. They have come to bring their message to parliament. These are the people we entrust with the job of ensuring that our kids get a good start in life. It's education not child care. They can't afford to stay in their jobs. I visited a great early childhood education organisation, in my electorate, a couple of days ago. I spoke to the manager. She said that at any one point in time she has a 10 per cent vacancy. I asked her where people go after they leave, whether they go to another early childhood education centre. She said, 'No, they can't afford to stay in the industry. They go to Bunnings, they go to Woolworths, they go to retail, they go to some other industry. They cannot afford to stay in their jobs.'
So when I hear the overheated rhetoric of those on the other side about, 'What's this multi-employer bargaining thing all about?' it's about them. It's about ensuring that these low-paid workers who we entrust with an incredibly important job have the capacity—they're never going to be able to get ahead bargaining directly with their employer, one worksite by another worksite. In fact, their employers support them. They know the only solution is a multi-employer solution, whether it be regional, state based or national based. That's what this is all about, not this other crap that you're going on about. It's animated by the spirit of man like Nando Lelli and the needs of the people 30 metres away from us here.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (19:14): We know what multi-employer bargaining is all about. It's about the Labor Party paying its masters. That's what it is about. Nothing else. Let's look at the facts. There was no election mandate, and there is no election mandate, when it comes to multi-employer bargaining. There was no mention of it—none; not one mention of it—before the election, apart from the Treasurer saying that they would not introduce multi-employer bargaining and that it was not part of the government's agenda. That was the only mention of multi-employer bargaining.
So let's be very clear: there's no election mandate for it, there is no evidence in any way that it will benefit the economy, and there has not been one skerrick of evidence produced by the government as to why it needs to be introduced. Why isn't there economic modelling which says there is a need for multi-employer bargaining? We know why. It's because they don't want to do it. If the government were serious about trying to address real wages, then they would take the time to ensure that the policies that they're putting in place were evidence based and were going to do the exact thing that they want them to do. Yet there is no economic modelling on these changes. Why not? They're too scared to do the modelling and to see the results or the outcome that this might produce.
The one piece of economic modelling which has been done was done on real wages in the budget. And what happens to real wages in the budget? They continue to go down. And what will happen as a result of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill? Well, we don't know whether it will further exacerbate real wages going down, because no modelling has been done. Do we know whether this reform will be productivity enhancing? No, we don't. As a matter of fact, every single indication is that it will not be productivity enhancing and that it will do the complete opposite.
It is in the non-traded parts of our economy where we need to see productivity lifting, yet this bill will do nothing to address that. As a matter of fact, it will more than likely lead to that non-tradeable part of our economy seeing more damage being done to its productivity rather than it being enhanced. If the government is serious about this bill, it needs to pull it. It needs to go back to the start. It needs to start by saying: what do we need to improve productivity in this nation, especially in the non-tradeable parts of this economy, and what are the reforms that we need to put in place to make sure that we lift productivity? This bill does not do this. Why? It is because there has been no consultation.
We had the minister today in question time trying to argue that he had consulted. He ran off this list of organisations that he said he had consulted with, yet every single one of the organisations he said he'd consulted with is opposed to the bill. So how have you consulted, when every single organisation that you've consulted with is opposed to the bill? It shows that your consultation has been a complete farce. And we know it has been a complete farce, because this bill hasn't been cooked up to try to enhance productivity in this nation; it hasn't been cooked up by bringing business and the unions together to try to make sure that productivity-enhancing laws are put in place in this nation. It was cooked up at that so-called jobs summit to keep the unions quiet. They were told, 'Come along. Be part of the gabfest and you'll be looked after.' And have they been looked after! Absolutely, they have been.
It goes to the heart of it that John Setka is the greatest supporter of this new government. This is what he had to say, and you can see the smile on his face as he said it:
Without going the early crow, I'm hoping that this government is going to be different (from the Rudd-Gillard governments) and from what I've seen so far I'm quietly confident.
Our next EBA negotiations are now not going to be restricted to shit clauses and we will have the power to go after the non-union sites …
He summed it up pretty well, John Setka, and that is exactly what this bill is going do. It is not only going to allow the CFMMEU to do all that but enable unions right across economy to do so too. And that will not enhance productivity in one way in this nation. One of the groups that the minister said he consulted with was Ai Group. Here's what Ai Group said about this bill: they said it would result in 'more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust within our enterprises'. That's completely and utterly damning, yet the minister says that he consulted—what an absolute farce.
What will this legislation do in a nutshell? It's going to lead to more strikes and job losses. Why would the government want to do this when their budget already points to the fact that we're going to see more job losses? This bill will mean that there will be more job losses on top of the job losses that will be occurring over the next 12 to 24 months. It will allow unions into small businesses, which have never had to deal with them before. Small businesses right across our economy who've never had to worry about unions and who are dealing, let's be fair, with enough red tape and regulation from local, state and federal government are now going to have to deal with the union movement coming in their front doors on top of all that. We are going to see more strikes and job losses and small businesses having to deal with unions coming through their front doors. We're going to see wages rises actually held up because of increased complexities and delays. And everyone right across the board—all the business organisations who've been consulted—clearly state that these laws are complex.
This legislation is going to undermine competition, so Australians will have fewer choices but face higher costs. And it's going to turn on its head the whole way that enterprise bargaining works in this nation. This is a bad bill which is going to make a tough situation for all Australians, which this government has done nothing to address, even worse. And let's be very clear: it is flawed legislation based on deception before the election, when the government made very clear it would not look at going anywhere near the type of multi-employer bargaining that the government is now introducing. And there is no economic modelling whatsoever that shows that this in any way is going to be productive— (Time expired)
Ms ROBERTS (Pearce) (19:24): I rise in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill. It is nothing short of unconscionable that in 2022 we are here in this place to justify this important legislation to get wages moving, while those opposite are trying to stop pay rises. This bill is about fighting for fair pay and fair work rights for everyone so that no one is left behind. This is a no-brainer. This, first and foremost, is about job security. It is about powering up our economy to get stagnant wages moving. It is about modernising a workplace relations system that has been lagging behind where it should be in 2022. It is about removing elements that hinder, such as built-in secrecy provisions, and bringing those systems up to standards Australians expect and deserve. It is also about gender equality. We talk about the gender pay gap, but really it is more of a cavern. It is currently sitting at 14.1 per cent. Men continue to earn more than women—on average, $263 more a week. To earn the same average annual salary earned by men, women would need to work 60 more days after the end of the financial year. We are working through the secure jobs, better pay bill to close the gender pay gap.
This bill is so long overdue—we have just experienced almost a decade of neglect from those opposite. We must use the opportunity we have here in this place to make real and positive changes and to enact desperately needed transformations to support Australian workers, rights and employment protections. Not only is this bill needed right now, at this time, but also, importantly, it is necessary to build positive foundations for the future and for our growing electorates, to strengthen communities and to contribute to Australia's broad prosperity. It will provide better and fairer work places for Australians in the decades ahead. That is important to residents in my electorate of Pearce, many of whom are young workers or young families with a mortgage, living in outer-metropolitan growth areas. Many have long distances to travel to their place of employment. Many have insecure jobs and rely on child care in order to work and earn a living to support their families. Our fellow Australians, who vote for us and who have given us the great privilege of being part of this parliament's decision-making process, should be able to count on all of us to deliver and to enable financial independence for those within our communities.
Two new Fair Work Commission expert panels on pay equality will be established for the female dominated care and community sector—an often undervalued, underpaid and insecure sector. We should not have to be reminded how crucial carers are for our society to function and how they provide a decent standard of care and dignity when we have elderly parents, children, and family members living with a disability. The work of those carers and early educators should not and must never be underestimated nor undervalued. These panels will ensure the necessary expertise is available in the commission.
I remind you all that the point of this legislation is: to provide improved job security; to provide better workplace conditions, including fair and equal pay; to create the appropriate circumstances to enable gender equity; and to ensure workers and employers have better frameworks in which to work together to improve our workplace relations protections. For too long, the previous government failed—and failed miserably—to act to improve our economy and industrial relations systems. What the previous government did was make decisions and choose to actively suppress wages, so it is vitally important that we now support change that will allow pay rises for those who need it the most. We can do this by ensuring our workers can bargain for better pay and conditions, and for increased job security, so that they have more money for living healthily and well—not just fighting to pay bills and trying to make ends meet.
This bill will ban secrecy clauses that currently allow companies to prohibit staff from talking about their pay. That secrecy can serve to cover up the inequity of wages between workers, and the disparity of wages between men and women. If you don't know you're being paid less because you and your colleagues can't talk legally, how can you talk about it? This bill will promote and improve transparency. We should all welcome that. It will reduce the very real risk of gender pay discrimination. It will empower women to ask their employers for a pay rise for just and deserved better pay.
This government is committed to job security becoming an important part of the workplace relations system. A new dispute resolution system at the Fair Work Commission will also provide a welcome mechanism for all workers to access fast and informal opportunities to resolve what can be stressful workplaces. I have got to say: how can anyone argue against a much-needed increase in job security, fairness and integrity?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): The debate is interrupted. The member for Pearce can, if she wishes, continue her speech after the adjournment debate.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Freelander ): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Calare Electorate: Natural Disaster
Mr GEE (Calare) (19:30): I'd like to bring to the attention of this house the plight of more than 20,000 residents, households and businesses in the electorate of Calare who've been without gas after a flood-related pipeline rupture along the Macquarie River between Bathurst and Oberon. I continue my calls for urgent financial assistance to help those living through this crisis. We need a natural disaster declaration and the financial help it brings.
If this unprecedented event had occurred in a capital city, I'm sure it would have been front-page news and funding would've been rolled out at the very first press conference. But this emergency has gone largely unreported and unnoticed by the city media for almost a week. While the state government has this afternoon declared the event an energy supply emergency, this does not bring with it any disaster assistance for our residents; it's all about the supply of energy. The New South Wales Energy and Utilities Administration Act, under which it was made, may ration electricity or get you a road transport permit faster, but it certainly does not deliver the financial help which we desperately need and which other communities already have.
There are 20,000 residents and households who had no heating, hot water or ability to cook for themselves. Both large and small businesses ground to a halt or drastically reduced their operations. Many are still shut. Cafes were forced to throw out thousands of dollars worth of food and ingredients. Hotel rooms were eerily vacant. Defence, manufacturing, and food and timber processing were all hit hard. A huge number of permanent and casual workers were stood down without pay. Livelihoods were damaged. Hospitals, commercial laundries, aged-care facilities, retirement villages, seniors and vulnerable residents, families, residents with disabilities and volunteer organisations such as Meals on Wheels have all been under great strain. It has caused chaos, fear, uncertainty and a whole lot of suffering.
Sadly, the silence in response to my calls for a natural disaster declaration have been deafening. There has been nothing from either the state government or the federal government. Our residents need help, and they need it now, so tonight I repeat those calls. We need this declaration to be made on the double. Thousands of people are hurting and are in need of assistance. Other areas facing emergencies brought on by storms and floods are already disaster declared. And let's be clear about this: the pipeline rupture was directly caused by an extreme weather event, the same one that has caused all the flooding. It's clearly all part of the same natural disaster, and our residents and our businesses should be getting exactly the same level of support as other parts of our state and nation.
The disaster recovery payment, disaster recovery allowance, business grants and all other assistance must be put in place to help everyone affected by this emergency. People hate it when different levels of government play the blame game. Both the state government and the federal government need to make a clear statement about whether they support a disaster declaration being made and how much they're putting on the table to help—no ifs and no buts. We have local residents in need and the buck-passing has to stop. If this had happened in Sydney, they'd be shovelling money out the door to help.
As our communities do in hard times, we come together. We've had drought, bushfires, COVID, a mouse plague and storms, and now this. I'd like to thank the three councils for the roles they've played in so many ways to assist residents facing this crisis. Lithgow, Oberon, and Bathurst councils wasted no time swinging into action to help residents get access to hot showers all over the region. We're getting through this together, and we couldn't have done it without the scores of council staff; police, firies, both RFS and Fire and Rescue, and ambos; community organisations; tradies, contractors and volunteers who have worked so hard. Thank you to the gas companies for working with our communities in a cooperative way; we need it to continue. Thank you also to the cafe and restaurant owners who have provided free food to those in need. To the neighbours who have shared their heaters, blankets, kettles, cooktops and showers: it may seem trivial, but it's made the world of difference.
We've all done our best, but we need financial assistance and we need it now. The state and federal governments can't afford to waste any more time. It's not good enough. I again call on them to get this done. Make this disaster declaration. Deliver to our communities the help that we need. Our region will not be ignored.
Vocational Education and Training
Mr RAE (Hawke) (19:35): I rise to commend the Victorian state member for Melton and the Victorian government, who recently committed $45 million to build a TAFE in Melton, in my electorate of Hawke and, indeed, in my good friend the member for Hunter's home town—where he grew up. Melton is one of Victoria's, if not Australia's, fastest growing suburbs, with a population forecast to grow to over 450,000 by 2051. With over half the population under the age of 35, the federal and state Labor governments are wasting no time in delivering the infrastructure and services the growing community needs. Road upgrades, school upgrades, new hospitals—there's plenty happening in our community. That's why it's so important that the Victorian Labor government will deliver a new TAFE campus in Melton with a focus on meeting the demand for construction skills training, amongst others. The new campus will support approximately 600 new students, with construction set to commence in 2024.
Those opposite like to claim that they are a party who believe that, in the words of the former prime minister and member for Cook, 'If you have a go, you get a go.' But the people of Melton have been having a red-hot go for the last decade, while the Liberals dudded them on physical and social infrastructure. The people of Melton and people right around our country know that it is only Labor governments that meaningfully invest in education, skills and training.
Just this afternoon, the member for Longman, gentleman and scholar that he is—who, I may say, is the quintessential example of the Liberal Party being the place that very moderately successful business families send their dopey sons—made a rambling contribution to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill debate.
An opposition senator in terjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Order!
Mr RAE: He suggested that those Australians who look to get ahead by doing an apprenticeship—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would remind the member to speak about fellow members of parliament respectfully.
Mr RAE: Indeed. He suggested that those Australians who look to get ahead by doing an apprenticeship should be rewarded, and, despite his dopiness, I agree. However, what he failed to mention was that, by the end of the Liberal Party's time in government, there were 70,000 fewer apprenticeships and traineeships compared to when they first came to government in 2013.
We on this side of the House are wasting no time in fixing this absolute mess left by the former government and in helping everyday Australians upskill with the skills and training that our economy needs. The Albanese Labor government is delivering 465,000 fee-free TAFE places to help address skill shortages, starting with a $550 million contribution to a jointly funded 12-month skills agreement to support 180,000 places from January next year. On top of this, the government is investing $50 million through the TAFE Technology Fund to improve IT facilities, workshops, laboratories and telehealth simulators across the country.
The Albanese Labor government is also delivering the Australian Skills Guarantee, ensuring that one in 10 workers on major federally funded government projects are an apprentice, a trainee or a paid cadet. Such is the belief of this government in the role of public TAFE in our economy, we will ensure TAFE receives at least 70 per cent of Commonwealth vocational and educational funding.
Public TAFE campuses are vital for communities like mine, and I'd like to bring the House's attention to a business in my home town of Ballan by way of demonstration. Tony and Edith Paarhammer started Paarhammer Windows and Doors in 1990 in a small rented garage. They took on their first apprentice just one year later. Now, after over 30 successful years, Paarhammer Windows and Doors is based out of a large 4,500 square metre factory in Ballan. They are one of the premier manufacturers of premium windows and doors in Australia. Incredibly, over those 30 years the Paarhammer business has trained more than 60 apprentices, passing on essential skills and experience. Tony and Edith understand the value of apprenticeships for business and for young workers, providing small and medium local business with the labour they need to grow and thrive while also providing the employment and trading our local economy relies on.
It is clear that only Labor governments, whether it be state or federal, will ensure that our TAFE system is provided with the funding that it needs to help Australian workers, business and the economy. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Minister Brendan O'Connor for his tireless work in cleaning up the mess left by those opposite, and local state member for Melton Steve McGhie for his role in delivering a TAFE for our community in Melton.
Flynn Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr BOYCE (Flynn) (19:40): On 28 September the Queensland Premier released a $62 billion energy plan to end Queensland's reliance on coal and become the renewable energy capital of the world. However, the Queensland Labor government's lack of planning and forward thinking has seen new infrastructure in the region come to a complete standstill.
I have previously used my time as the federal member for Flynn to speak about the serious logistical issues that are preventing the use of the port of Gladstone. The former member for Flynn, Ken O'Dowd, secured $100 million for the Access to Gladstone Port project back on 3 April 2019 to provide an alternative route for heavy vehicles accessing the port of Gladstone. This has not progressed. The Access to Gladstone Port project is stagnant and planning strategies since 2020—there are four bridges in the Gladstone area that have oversized load and weight restrictions on them. These bridges need to be repaired and present huge logistical problems for the Queensland Labor government's proposed multibillion-dollar alternative and renewal energy projects in Central Queensland.
A few weeks ago we saw a 250-tonne energy generator, on its way to the Callide Power Station, stranded at the port of Gladstone due to bridges in the region having these oversized load and weight restrictions placed upon them. This generator has now had to be loaded on a barge and taken further up the port to Fishermans Landing. This is a waste of time and resources, and it's even more disappointing that it could have been prevented.
The Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Mr Mark Bailey, is asleep at the wheel. He is missing in action. There are still no updates as to how this infrastructure in the region is going to be improved to accommodate the Queensland government's energy plan. On top of this, there have been no critical questions answered about the Queensland Labor government's energy plan. As of 1 November 2022 there are a total of 14 councils and two part-councils that are drought declared. These declarations represent 41.9 per cent of the land area of Queensland. There are also 27 individual drought declared properties and a further eight local government areas.
The Queensland Labor government's plan to build the largest pumped hydro scheme in the world on the world's driest habitable continent makes no logical sense. It was only a few years ago that many dams and storages were at critically low levels. So how can the government possibly guarantee adequate water supply for a pumped hydro-electrical system given there is a 30 per cent evaporation and seepage loss over a 12-month period?
Furthermore, Gladstone Area Water Board issued a critical water supply alert to industry at Gladstone around 18 months ago that is still in place. There have been no substantial flows into Lake Awoonga, which is currently at 65 per cent capacity. There is not enough water for agriculture or the production of hydrogen. How can there possibly be enough water for hydroelectricity?
I draw your attention to section 100 of the Australian Constitution. It says:
Nor abridge right to use water.
The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.
That's what it says. In simple terms, this gives the states—and in my argument the Queensland Labor government—the power to approve or disapprove any water infrastructure proposed by the federal government. The Queensland Labor government has rejected billions of dollars of water infrastructure funding offered by previous coalition governments. Furthermore, the current federal Labor government has withdrawn billions of dollars of water infrastructure funding in its October budget, including by not proceeding with the Hells Gate Dam project and many other water infrastructure projects throughout Queensland.
The development of water assets is critical to the future of the agriculture industry in Australia. The Labor Party, both state and federal, has failed to recognise this fact. The Queensland Labor government also plans to transition Queensland's coal-fired power stations into clean energy hubs from 2027. Can they guarantee that enough baseload power will keep supply to the region's industry, keep it moving and keep household lights on?
Robertson Electorate: Mobile Offices
Dr REID (Robertson) (19:45): September and October have been busy months in the mighty electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast. My office and I have hosted several mobile offices across the electorate. This is because not all constituents are able to get to my office located in West Gosford, whether this be due to work commitments, whether this be due to lack of transportation or other inhibiting factors. In turn, mobile offices provide an opportunity for constituents to come and meet me and to come and have a chat with me. They get to meet my team and discuss issues in their suburb close to their homes. Providing regular mobile offices across Robertson over the course of the year is also part of my commitment to ensure that my office is always accessible and always dependable. I intend to keep this commitment and aim to have a mobile office in every suburb of Robertson at least once during my term.
During September I was able to host a mobile office in Bensville. Residents spoke to me about a range of issues from the conditions of local roads, requests for assistance with federal government departments, or simply coming by to introduce themselves and have a bit of a chat. One of the overarching messages that invariably comes from hosting mobile offices is how appreciative residents are that their local federal member of parliament is hosting these regular mobile offices in suburbs across the electorate. Many have spoken to me about this being the first time in a long time, or the first time ever, that they have been able to meet with their federal member close to their home. It is flagrantly clear that mobile offices are an essential aspect of the democratic process and should not be overlooked.
Since my visit to Bensville, the Albanese government has delivered its first budget. In this budget, commitments made during the 2022 federal election have been honoured. I'm proud to report that we have successfully secured $40 million to upgrade 60 of the Central Coast's worst local roads. The Central Coast region suffers from some of the worst local road conditions in the country. Compounding this issue—this has been the wettest year on record and constant rainfall is causing havoc on our local road infrastructure. I know that this funding provided by the Albanese Labor government will ensure Central Coast road repair can commence and we can repair a score of damaged roads, in turn reducing the likelihood of damage to car suspension and wheels inflicted from gaping potholes and guaranteeing smoother drives across the entire Central Coast region—visiting some of our great attractions, some of our beautiful beaches, ensuring that residents can get to work.
In October my team and I hosted a mobile office in the beachside suburb of Copacabana—arguably one of the best beaches on the Central Coast, with a large proportion of environmentally conscious residents. About 50 residents responded to my invitation and, again, a range of issues were discussed. One key takeaway from this mobile office was the Albanese government's plan to roll out 400 community batteries across Australia. In the recent budget I was pleased to report that our commitment to establish a community battery in Narara has been confirmed. Across Robertson residents are now requesting community batteries in other suburbs and Copacabana is no exception. It is obvious that Australians are quickly understanding the benefits of renewable energy and the effect they can have in relation to lowering cost-of-living pressures and reducing our carbon footprint. I will be making representations to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, and will highlight the large volume of interest community batteries are having across our glorious electorate.
Again during October my team and I visited Empire Bay to host one of our mobile offices. Key messages from this mobile office were the state of local roads, in particular Rickard Road, and the campaign to save the historic Empire Bay boatshed. The member for Gosford, Liesl Tesch, and I will be making urgent representations to the New South Wales government and the Minister for Environment and Heritage about options to protect the Empire Bay boatshed from demolition and to restore the boatshed for future generations.
My team and I have appreciated the opportunity of hosting regular monthly mobile offices and have enjoyed meeting with so many community focused and passionate people across the Central Coast. We look forward to a busy couple of months ahead of the end of the year and Christmas. This month alone we have three mobile offices scheduled, in Saratoga, coastal suburbs of Hardys Bay, Wagstaffe, Pretty Beach, Kilcare and Kilcare Heights, as well as Wamberal and Terrigal. Accessible, dependable, and that's my commitment to Robertson.
Budget
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (19:50): I rise tonight to speak on one of the most critical issues that Australia is facing as we go through a difficult period of inflation and challenge for household budgets on energy prices. The budget was a test for the government. It was a chance and an opportunity for a new government to set the tone on what is going to be the biggest pressure on business, manufacturing, households and small business, and that is power prices. It was a test for the government, and the government didn't meet the challenge it was faced with because it has an ideological bent in relation to climate change that prevents it from pursuing good economic and engineering policies.
We've heard much in recent days from the Treasurer and Minister for Climate Change and Energy about how gas companies are to blame for gas prices going up and that it's greed that has enabled gas prices and energy prices to go up. It's like a scene out of a movie because it's so unrealistic. It's hard to imagine what audience they're speaking to. Are they trying to say that people in Australia are so silly that they think that prices have gone up purely because a bunch of executives sat around and said, 'Wouldn't it be fun to lift prices and make tonnes of money off people just for fun?' and that's why the prices have gone up? I think every member of this House knows the truth that that's not why power prices have gone up. That's not why the price of gas has gone up.
We have had supply shortages in Australia in relation to gas for some period of time. There have been perhaps a decade or more of warnings about the need to bring on a much greater supply of gas, and there are several governments in Australia—
Mr Rae: If only there was a government listening!
Mr HAWKE: I'll take the member for Hawke's interjection. As he might remember, we are a federation. There are governments that have had responsibility for resources inside their states that have banned exploration for new gas. One of those you'll be familiar with is his comrades Daniel Andrews, the Premier of Victoria, who in 2017 with great fanfare on an ideological basis banned gas from being bought on. You can't increase the supply of gas in your state. States are sovereign, and you can't increase the supply of gas. The Commonwealth can't override that decision because the state has banned the new supply from coming on. The member for Hawke will understated what I'm talking about. He's probably a big supporter of that.
The federal government did do something. We signed agreements with every single one of those state government, and I'm happy to talk the member for Hawke and other members opposite through the bilateral energy agreements. We struck a deal with the New South Wales in January 2020, a $2 billion gas deal with New South Wales to increase gas supply and reduce emissions by bringing 70 petajoules of gas a year into the east coast market. In April 2021 we signed a deal with the South Australian government, a billion dollars. I know Labor members don't see $2 billion and $1 billion as significant amounts, but these are significant investments in gas supply. We signed that agreement to bring on an additional 50 petajoules by the end of 2023. With Daniel Andrews we couldn't sign a deal to bring on the gas—I hate to tell you this—because he doesn't want to bring on the gas. He refuses, so you can't have more supply of gas when the Premier says, 'No gas,' because he doesn't believe in gas, so I know your point was well made over there. The government worked really hard to ensure that states understood the urgency and priority.
Why was gas so demonised?
We know that for the left it became fashionable. Once they'd finished with this relentless assault on Australian coal—even though it's one of our major exports, even though it's still one of the world's primary fuel sources for cheap and low-cost energy for people around the world to generate electricity—they turned on gas savagely. Members opposite were part of that. They said gas was the next coal. Gas had to be stopped as well, even though the warnings said that gas would be needed as a transition to whatever the technology will be. Whatever source of energy you prefer to have generated in the future, we must transition through the use of gas.
It is cute for Labor ministers to now stand up and say, 'Why haven't we got enough gas?' and 'It's the greed of companies that have produced this shortage of supply.' This is purely incorrect. It is a failure of government and regulatory policy. It is a failure of the climate wars, but not in the way the Labor Party mean it. They fought the war against gas, and they did it knowingly and willingly. They said: 'We don't want it. We still have a premier of a major state in Australia.' We have as much gas under Australia as oil under Saudi Arabia, but we're not allowed to get because the Premier of Victoria says—
The House transcript was published up to 19:56 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.
Federation Chamber
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 09:30.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Indigenous Health
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (09:30): The whole of Australia is intrigued by parliament and government. When I walk into a pub, they say, 'Who's driving the bus?' As best I can, I try to give an honest answer—which is not characteristic of politicians, I suppose!—and I say, 'Well, nobody.'
We have some 100,000 people living in the community areas of Australia. These are fair dinkum blackfellas, not make-believe blackfellas like me, who get a bit dark and run around claiming that they're blackfellas. They are fair dinkum. They speak language. They live out there in communities that were once mission stations run by the much-maligned missionaries. If it wasn't for them, my race of people would have been wiped out. I know because my parents were pioneers. They go back 150 years in Kalkadoon territory, and the Kalkadoon held the whitefellas at bay for 60 years. How about that? They stood up against the invader and held them at bay for 60 years. Now, these people have a life expectancy of 56, and no-one in this place could give a damn.
I have not seen one single act by successive governments to do anything to help these people other than have inquiries and write reports. I got agreement on market gardens off the last Prime Minister 4½ years ago. They did a series of reports, and they had to consult with tribal elders. They couldn't find tribal elders in most cases, but, when they did, it just went on and on and on. We had to protect their cultural identity and we had to protect the environment, and, in the meantime, people were dying.
I come here today to praise the heroes. A bloke called John McCracken was transferred out to Doomadgee on some job, and he said: 'Mate, given the cost of fruit and vegetables here, I'm going to starve to death. Why don't we put a market garden in?' One of the great leaders, in my opinion, Troy Fraser, ran the rugby league at Doomadgee. We had to travel 1,800 kilometres, and we played Hughenden. I was president of the rugby league in those days. Troy could get a team together and get them training. I know that people have a view of them all lying around doing nothing and being drunks. Well, they're lying around doing nothing because they can't do anything, because, if you drink, you can't get a blue card and you can't own any land. So there's no private enterprise in any communities, because they can't own private land. The only jobs available are government jobs, but, because you had a few beers, you can't get a blue card. My son goes on and on about it. But nobody listens to us.
Now, John McKracken— (Time expired)
Williams, Mr Kenny
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith—Assistant Minister for Defence, Assistant Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Assistant Minister for the Republic) (09:33): Our community and the AFL have lost a legend with the passing of Kenny Williams at the age of 93. Kenny was the Sydney Swans' No. 1 supporter and a lifetime member. He was the team's hydration specialist and lead club song singer. His rousing renditions of 'Cheer, cheer', including after the 2005 and 2012 grand final victories, will live long in our memories. I'll never forget the day I was doorknocking in Kingsford, and I met Kenny. I appreciated the time that Kenny gave me to tell me about his history with the AFL and our community. For Kenny Williams, footy was more than just a game. It was about community and connection. He never, ever missed a game. And now, we will sorely miss him.
It started out with a passion for the South Melbourne Swans Football Club, and when Kenny moved to Sydney at the age of 21 to become an apprentice jockey at Randwick he missed his home team. As luck would have it, in 1982 South Melbourne moved to the SCG, a little over a bounce away from Kenny's Kingsford home. Kenny helped to bridge the divide between Sydney and Melbourne, and he brought together generations of players and footy fans with his legendary dinners at the family home.
The Swannies' next win will be bittersweet. The song simply won't be the same without Kenny leading it. We won't have Kenny with us, but we will have his spirit. I offer sincere condolences to his wife, Yvonne, and his daughters, Diane and Cheryl. Vale Kenny Williams. May he rest in peace.
Mascot Kings Football Club
Mr THIS TLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith—Assistant Minister for Defence, Assistant Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Assistant Minister for the Republic) (09:35): On 23 October I was proud to join hundreds of locals to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Mascot Kings Football Club. Mascot Kings is the result of a merger between two clubs—the Kingsford Megisti Soccer Club, established in 1972, and the Mascot Jets Soccer Club. The clubs combined in 1995 to form the Mascot Kings, which plays out of L'Estrange Park in Mascot. They support hundreds of locals playing the great game of football, from MiniRoos right up to the under 45s in both the women's and men's competitions.
But the Mascot Kings is more than just a football club; it's a family, which supports many charities in our local community. At the celebration I was honoured to present Lisa Cassells and Joe Santangelo with the Glenn McEnallay Award, named after a local police officer, Glenn McEnallay, who was killed in the line of duty in 2002. It was wonderful to hear from some of the club's founding members at the celebration, and I pay tribute to them for their foresight. I thank President James Mavroudis and all the board and volunteers associated with the Mascot Kings. Congratulations on 50 years.
Far West NSW Business Awards
Rhino Awards
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Chief Nationals Whip) (09:36): At the moment across my electorate, which is half of New South Wales, we are having extensive flooding. This follows on from a few years ago when there was drought and mice and other things. These are the things that the people in my electorate deal with but they don't define them.
I want to talk about some positive things that have happened over the last couple of weeks. Last weekend I had the honour of being at the Far West NSW Business Awards in Broken Hill. About 280 people were at this function, and it really showed the resilience and the strength of the business community in the Far West. The Outback Spirit Award, the premier award for the night, went to the Old Salt Bush Restaurant and Catering, which is a new business but also very successful. The Excellence in Social Enterprise Award went to West Darling Arts, an organisation I've been dealing with for quite some time, and they're working on the laneway festival that's going to be held in Broken Hill next year. The award for the most popular business went to Jagged Edge, which is a very popular local hairdresser.
That event followed on from a few weeks ago when I was in Dubbo for the Rhino Awards, the business awards for Dubbo. It was a big night and a great night, with a lot of positivity. The Gold Rhino Award for the most popular and most successful business in Dubbo went to the Skin Corrective Centre. It was started by two sisters some years ago and is an incredibly successful family-owned business. I was really pleased that they got that Gold Rhino. The Jean Emile Serisier honour roll recipient award—not many people know that Dubbo was actually founded by a Frenchman called Jean Emile Serisier—went to the Furney family from Ben Furney Flour Mills for their significant contribution over many years to the Dubbo community.
Not just Broken Hill and Dubbo but right across the Parkes electorate, small businesses are driving our communities. There's an air of positivity about our incredibly bright future not only through tourism and agriculture but with the mining prospects that are opening up, with cobalt and magnetite out in the Far West near Broken Hill, critical minerals and rare earths around Dubbo as well as massive gold deposits that have been uncovered in the Dubbo area as well. The Parkes electorate is an economic powerhouse. It's helped keep this country strong during the pandemic. They're having a bit of a difficulty at the moment with the floods but they will endure and continue to do the great job that they do all the time.
Paterson Electorate
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (09:40): Across my electorate of Paterson, small businesses really are setting and raising the bar. I'm so proud of my region and the way it features regularly in national awards. I want to congratulate East Maitland's Windsor Castle Hotel, which was among the winners in this year's AHA Awards for Excellence. The Windsor Castle won best regional wagering venue, with notable recognition of its success as a vibrant space where locals can enjoy food and quality entertainment. Local pubs and clubs bring people together every day. They're not just places to eat and drink; they're places that bring our communities together and provide connection for people throughout our region. I want to say a great big congratulations to Hannah Medz and her team, as well as the owners of the Windsor Castle, Sean O'Hara and Nick Quinn, who make this venue an important feature of the Maitland landscape. Thank you to the Windsor Castle and all the small businesses achieving wonderful things across our region.
Just a couple of Saturday nights ago, I was actually at the Windsor Castle. Not only did it remind me of how great it is to have a gathering venue like that but I was there to celebrate the Maitland Mustangs. Basketball began in Maitland in 1952. The 'Mustangs' were coined in the eighties. It was a fantastic night of celebrating this regional sporting team that reached the grand finals in the NBL 1 this year. Those guys, and they're a team of young men, couldn't have been better examples of what we would all hope for in our young people. They were intelligent, they were obviously very fit, being basketball players, but they were so respectful. When they came to receive their medals—and getting to a grand final in basketball is no mean feat—they spoke so brilliantly to everyone who was at the venue. They embraced the younger generation of kids coming through in basketball. They showed real deference to the older players, who still run around the court on a Monday night and get a bit of a sweat up. They then chatted generally with people in the pub about basketball and how they had done so well in the season. The women's team were there and they had a fabulous year as well.
Sitting in that pub, I just thought, 'We are so blessed, not only to have brilliant teams like the Maitland Mustangs and to have this community spirit around local sport but also to have a place like the Windsor Castle where we could all get together and celebrate the magnificent job that they've done this year
Leichhardt Electorate
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (09:43): While I welcome the government's significant investment commitments to the Kuranda Range in the marine precinct in my electorate, I want to raise some serious concerns about the effectiveness of the funding. Let me start by addressing the concerns with the government's commitment for $210 million for safety upgrades on the Kuranda Range. No-one can deny that safety is of the utmost importance, but the reality on the ground is that we need to be focusing on resolving the connectivity issues. Doing what they're doing at the moment is like putting lipstick on a pig. The Kuranda Range is effectively already at and well beyond maximum capacity. It typically closes about 44 times a year, on average, for six hours each time. The Kuranda Range will always be a local and tourist access road from Cairns to the Tablelands but it has serious restrictions in relation to heavy transport both from the Barron River bridge capacity and the range itself. No number of safety upgrades can address these problems. The solution is an alternative route connecting Cairns to the Tablelands.
An alternative route will offer access for the B-doubles with over 50 tonne capacity and provide options for commuters who routinely find themselves stranded in the Kuranda Range. I implore the government to set aside $22 million from the committed $210 million to complete the engineering costings and the business case, which will show a viable alternative, of which there are already three possibilities that I'm aware of. This will allow us to seriously consider a fully costed, practical alternative route and start planning for construction. This is fully supported by all the councils, the chambers of commerce, Advance Cairns and the majority of the local community.
Another issue is in regard to the Cairns Marine Precinct. The government has committed $110 million, matched with the state government, for a common user facility on land recently made available under the Ports North master plan. The CUF is something that I've been working towards for the last five years. However, there have been no formal costings or any engineering completed for the identified location that the government talks about, and the advice I have suggests that the cost will be greater than $600 million, compared to the $300 million set aside. While I support the CUF, it is several years down the track.
But there is an opportunity to complete the actual marine precinct, and this requires a further investment of $24 million. It is common knowledge among the relevant stakeholders, but somehow it seems to have eluded the government. You really can't start the common user facility if the marine precinct isn't completed and all the businesses within the precinct are in agreement. It is precisely why we committed to fund the final investment in the last election. I strongly urge the government to sit down with stakeholders and the users to go through details on the issue. Funding could easily be taken from the already committed funding. It will finalise the most important piece of the puzzle. It is abundantly clear to me that the government's commitment on a common user facility will be hamstrung if the marine precinct doesn't receive the required amount of investment that's needed to complete the project.
Invictus Australia
Soft Landing
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (09:46): The Tuggeranong Archery Club was abuzz on Saturday with the Invictus Australia inaugural Defence Community Sports Day. Around 300 families registered and came along to have a try of some Invictus Games sports, including wheelchair rugby league, archery, pickleball, bowls, indoor rowing, table tennis and more. There were mums and dads drawing back bows, kids on the rowing machines racing the clocks and families playing against each other in wheelchair rugby. It was a lot of fun. We even had a special Bhutanese archery display, which has to be seen to be truly appreciated. Next year in February there will be an international competition at the Tuggeranong Archery Club, so mark that in your calendar now.
Heaps of volunteers worked tirelessly to facilitate the day: cooking the sausage sizzle, directing the traffic, preparing the venue and lots more. There were around 10 ex-services organisations that set up and provided activities for the kids in addition to information about their services. It was a great collaboration. Invictus Australia's mission is to improve the health, wellbeing and quality of life of current and former serving veterans and their families through ongoing involvement with sport and recreation. We know sport is a powerful tool in aiding veterans in all aspects of life, from rehabilitation to tackling social isolation and finding purpose. Finally, a special mention to the organising committee from Invictus Australia and particularly to Invictus legends Ben and Steve.
Around 740,000 mattresses end up in landfill each year. Here in the ACT we churned through close to 50,000 mattresses last year. Yesterday, with the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek MP, and the members for Fenner and Canberra, I visited Soft Landing, a great social enterprise based in Hume in Bean that is doing its best to pull apart mattresses to re-use. But some mattress components can't be easily recycled, and some mattress designs are currently completely unrecyclable and just go into landfill. Soft Landing is also providing important pathways back into work for many Canberrans who have experienced employment challenges and barriers.
Yesterday the minister announced that mattresses have now been added to the minister's product stewardship priority list. This calls on industry to take full responsibility for the full life cycle of their products. That means ensuring the development, design, manufacture, import, sale, use and recovery of materials and products is more sustainable. While this will take some time, it will act with the great work of organisations like Soft Landing to substantially decrease the amount of product that goes to landfill while ensuring much more of the material is then recycled.
North Sydney Bears
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:49): I rise to speak about a matter which is dear to many sports lovers in my electorate of Bradfield and across Sydney's North Shore as a whole. The North Sydney Bears played their last season in the National Rugby League in 1999. The Bears were formed in 1908. They were one of the foundation clubs in rugby league. For decades they were a powerhouse in the competition, supported very widely across the North Shore and beyond. Even today there is very strong support for the Bears in northern Sydney and certainly in my electorate of Bradfield.
Today I join with many other voices who are calling for the North Sydney Bears to be readmitted to the National Rugby League. There are 17 teams in the NRL today. Allocating an 18th license to the Bears makes very good sense for several reasons. First, bringing back one of the original teams with a history of iconic players over the decades, like Greg Florimo and Ken Irvine, will be seen as a highly appropriate move by all who love rugby league. Second, it will strengthen the NRL by adding a new team which has strong support across a large and presently unrepresented part of Sydney. Third, it will add to the competition a club which does excellent work in our local community, building participation and giving opportunities to both junior and senior players.
Earlier this year I met with Bears Chairman Daniel Dickson and Chief Executive Gareth Holmes to discuss this work. The Bears have an impressive feeder program, which includes the Asquith Magpies. There are many Magpies players who come from Bradfield and from the neighbouring electorate of Berowra. Their licensed club, Magpies Waitara, located in Waitara in my electorate, is an important and much loved community institution, where many locals enjoy the chance—at very reasonable prices—to eat and drink, to be entertained and to connect with others. The record shows a considerable number of top-level league players got their start with the Asquith Magpies, including former State of Origin player Mitchell Pearce, New Zealand international Kieran Foran and the Bears' own 1970s halfback Kevin Wilson.
If the Bears return to the NRL it will have flow-on benefits for community sport on the North Shore and will over time foster a new generation of rugby league representatives from the North Shore. A fourth reason to bring back the Bears is their exciting plan to expand the rugby league footprint. They're ready to take on an additional territory beyond their north Sydney and North Shore heartland. The Pacific is a rugby league powerhouse, and the Bears' re-entry to the NRL could be part of a new push to provide even stronger connections between the Pacific and Australia, with the Bears standing ready to provide additional support and opportunities for rugby league in the Pacific.
We know that sport brings committees together, and the return of the Bears would be a great way to bring back the North Shore rugby league identity. In turn, this would help further strengthen community spirit on the North Shore, including in my electorate of Bradfield. For all of these reasons I'm very pleased to be standing up in our national parliament to say: bring back the Bears.
Health Care
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (09:52): When the health minister tells a local journalist that general practice is in its worst shape in the history of Medicare, it's clear our government is not sugar-coating how dire the situation is for people trying to see a GP and for the GPs, their practice managers, nurses and staff, who are trying to provide a fundamental service. We know that waiting lists are long, GPs and their teams are stretched beyond capacity and bulk billing is almost gone. We also know how vital it is that people have good access to GPs because it helps detect problems earlier and prevent more serious illnesses, and it helps people with chronic issues stay out of hospital.
Health minister Mark Butler joined me earlier this month to meet with Winmalee Medical Centre GPs Mike De Vries and Geoffrey Chew to hear first hand the experience of GPs and their patients in Macquarie. Across the electorate, GPs and their teams have worked unrelentingly to support people through COVID, not to mention fire and flood traumas. As the minister told the Blue Mountains Gazette, there is no higher priority for him than fixing the GP crisis that we've inherited. But we know that it's not a quick fix.
Changes that have already come in, like allowing practices to recruit foreign GPs, are a start, but getting more students to choose general practice is also key. Tackling the Medicare rebates, which have been frozen for so long that GPs are in a time warp, is part of the job of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce, which will report by the end of the year on how to make primary care more affordable for patients and how to improve access, especially after hours. All these issues were canvassed with doctors De Vries and Chew, and I want to thank them for taking time out of their packed days to be the representatives for their colleagues across Macquarie. Pharmacists Sheryn and Sal from Blooms in Springwood also echoed the concerns with an example that when they recommend a customer visit a GP the response is frequently that they can't get an appointment for weeks.
We know the issues. We won't shy away from them and ignore them in the hope that somehow they will magically fix themselves. We'll do what responsible governments do and tackle them step-by-step, just like we have with the cut to prescription prices that comes in from 1 January. This will mean a trip to the pharmacy will be cheaper for millions of Australians, many of them in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, with people paying up to 29 per cent less for PBS scripts, with the maximum general co-payment dropping from $42.52 to $30, saving some patients hundreds of dollars a year. Plus, we've allowed more retirees to access the Commonwealth healthcare card, which changes the income limits so they get even greater savings.
Gelin, Dr Ben Ami, OAM
Gelin, Dr Martha
Mr GEE (Calare) (09:55): Today I rise to pay tribute to two much loved and highly regarded and esteemed Bathurstians: Dr Ben Ami Gelin OAM and this late wife, Dr Martha Gelin. Both have been honoured as Living Legends by the Bathurst Regional Council, Ben in 2015 and Martha five years later, an honour only bestowed on the city's finest residents in recognition of their selfless contribution.
The pair spent 59 years together, inseparable, after a chance meeting in a lecture hall at the University of Pennsylvania sparked a lifelong union of happiness. The couple and their two children, Adam and Shana, made Bathurst their home in 1984, and they didn't look back, throwing themselves into every facet of their new regional lives, from the cultural, creative and performing arts sectors to community, youth, health and the law. This selfless couple gave so much of themselves to so many groups, organisations and people. In fact, there are few sections of the community untouched by the selfless Gelins. They stretched themselves thin, expertly juggling raising their family with their legal and health professions and innumerous hours of community service.
Dr Ben Gelin is a highly respected Associate Professor of Law at Charles Sturt University with his own legal firm, and it was an honour to have worked with him as a barrister. Dr Martha Gelin was the region's first HIV-AIDS coordinator, a position she held for a decade. Her revolutionary approach to education and workshops taught countless people the importance of protecting themselves during the pandemic, and she authored The Sex Explanation Handbook to help parents talk openly to their children.
Martha's talents did not stop there. A childhood love of fossils inspired her to become the first volunteer guide at the Australian Fossil and Mineral Museum in Bathurst. She dedicated countless hours to cataloguing relics and was the much loved smiling face of the museum, proudly shared her passion with thousands of visitors, a position she held until her passing. Martha had an endless love of creative and performing arts. She was an early member of the Bathurst Panorama Chorus as well as the Bathurst city orchestra. She held several management and board positions, including on the Mitchell Conservatorium. Martha and Ben also made significant financial contributions to it over many, many years.
Sadly, Martha passed away in 2020, months after being named a Living Legend. Dr Ben Gelin, now in his 80s, still works in the legal field as a consultant solicitor. He's still an active board member of many organisations, including the Bathurst Seymour Centre, the Mitchell Conservatorium and Veritas House. On behalf of this parliament, I recognise and thank Dr Ben and the late Dr Martha Gelin for their exemplary service and pivotal roles in making Bathurst the city it is today.
Jagajaga Electorate: Sport
Youth Voice in Parliament
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (09:58): I am a proud supporter of sporting clubs in my electorate. From Ivanhoe all the way up to Kangaroo Ground, some of the best local sport in the country is played in Jagajaga, and it is essential that we continue to encourage our kids to put their hands up and get involved with sporting activities in our communities. That's why I was thrilled to see so many recipients from Jagajaga in the latest round of the Local Sporting Champions grants. A total of 12 young athletes from Jagajaga represented their clubs and the state in national championships across the country, and they were assisted by funding from the Commonwealth government. I was really pleased to meet with some of these young people, with Nicholas from Banyule Tennis Club and with Oli from Research Lower Plenty Baseball Club. It was a real pleasure to talk with them about their sporting endeavours, and I know they are doing very well.
I also want to acknowledge Heidelberg local Madi Fox, who represented team Victoria in swimming at the Special Olympics National Games in Tasmania. I am thrilled to report that Madi came in first place in her medley relay, backstroke and freestyle races. It is just such a fantastic effort by Madi and by the whole team.
Of course, I do want to give a shout-out to all of the coaches, to the teammates and to the parents, who make all of this possible and who volunteer their time, their energy and their effort in supporting young people in our community and communities across the country through their sporting journeys. They all make us proud every day.
As part of the Youth Voice in Parliament initiative from Raise Our Voice Australia, I've received the following from Dylan Vigilante in my electorate, and I'm please to present it to the parliament. Dylan says:
Seeing the new Parliament of Australia invokes many emotions in me, but the one I want to share today is hope.
Hope that I will have a Parliament that considers the young people of Australia and will accomplish what we all as young people set out to do, whether it be climate action, safe working conditions or Indigenous equality.
I hope the new Parliament will fight for this with the same passion we all fight with.
I've seen and experienced many issues within Australia as a young person and having a Parliament that doesn't just listen but acts on the calls of the younger generation is something that the Australian Parliament must do.
To truly represent the people of Australia, all people; whether you are a first Australian or someone who only recently called this country home, I hope they are heard.
I hope the Parliament will strive to listen and act on all that my generation has to offer.
Thank you to Dylan for those comments. I'm really pleased and proud that our government is putting a lot of effort into hearing the voices of young people in this place, including Minister Aly's initiative to set up a youth steering committee, which I understand youths from across the country expressed interest in being part of. It's a fantastic initiative.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Clayd on ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:02): I'm pleased to speak on the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022. Australians owe a debt of gratitude to our veterans. When a person enlists in the ADF, they commit to serve their country and the people of Australia, whether in wars, conflicts, peacekeeping or disaster support. I am pleased to have RAAF Base Amberley in my electorate. It's a beloved institution. The people there are greatly valued. In return, as a grateful nation, we have responsibilities to serve and look after defence personnel, whether serving or subsequent.
Housing affordability is one of the biggest challenges facing Australians today, and it's harder to buy a house today than ever before. Defence personnel and veterans are not immune to this and often face unique challenges when it comes to buying their own home. Homeownership levels within the ADF have traditionally been low due to the nature of service, including the frequency of posting cycles throughout Australia and a high operational tempo with overseas deployments in recent years. This bill also responds to the struggles experienced by veterans and the role that housing can play in their greater wellbeing. We've seen with the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide the effect that homelessness has had on the mental wellbeing of veterans throughout the country. In a recent report, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that safe, secure and affordable housing is fundamental to veterans' wellbeing.
Labor has always understood these issues, and we have a strong record of providing housing support for our service men and women. The Hawke-Keating Labor government, under the great Minister for Defence, Kim Beazley, created Defence Housing Australia in 1987 to provide high-quality housing for defence members throughout the country. Despite coalition threats to sell off DHA over the years, its services remain very popular with defence members. It was the Rudd Labor government that established the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, DHOAS, in 2008 to promote homeownership through a monthly subsidy on mortgage interest payments for eligible defence personnel and veterans. This replaced the former Defence Home Ownership Scheme set up by the Hawke-Keating government in 1991 to assist current and former ADF members to purchase their homes.
These initiatives also recognise that housing entitlements are a key recruitment and retention tool. It's a welfare and support measure, as evidence to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide clearly demonstrates. It's also a recruitment and retention measure. Every year, one in 10 people separate from their employment in the ADF. It's a goal—a bipartisan goal—to increase the size of the ADF, and we are currently falling behind when it comes to annual recruitment of ADF members. The proposal, which is supported by both sides of politics, is to increase the ADF workforce by 30 per cent to 80,000 members by 2040. This measure in this bill is key in that proposal.
Over the years, DHOAS has proved very popular, with more than 30,000 ADF members accessing support totalling $395 million, paid in subsidies from 2008 to 2014. Recent Defence annual reports show continuing interest in the scheme, with 6,123 applicants processed and 3,602 subsidy payments made in 2020-21.
When we were in opposition, Labor received a lot of feedback from ADF members that defence housing entitlements simply weren't effective, given the current state of the housing market, including in places like Ipswich, Townsville and Brisbane, and they suggested that there needed to be more support for homeownership, relative to accommodation entitlements. In addition, some veterans told us that their access to housing and homeownership specifically would support their transition back to civilian life after they'd left the ADF. That's why, as the former shadow minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel, I was proud to announce that an incoming Labor government would boost homeownership for defence personnel and veterans by expanding eligibility criteria for the DHOAS.
The changes we announced which are the subject of this bill will improve access to homeownership for defence personnel early in their defence careers and allow veterans to access the scheme at any time after they've completed their service. These improvements will be greatly appreciated. The bill also makes amendments to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 which aim to improve homeownership levels amongst serving defence personnel and members of the veterans community by: (1) reducing the qualifying service period for defence members to access the scheme; (2) reducing the required period of effective service to access subsidy tier levels; and (3) removing the current five-year post-separation time frame for accessing the scheme.
The bill also makes a range of amendments that will improve the operation of the scheme, including creating a power to declare that a subsidised loan was not paid down where it was the result of a genuine error, mistake or accident; creating a mechanism to make relevant payments, including overpayments, otherwise not authorised by the act; and creating a mechanism to recover relevant payments that are not overpayments. In short, we're reducing or removing the minimum service requirement for each subsidy tier from 1 January 2023, by halving the minimum service required for access for current defence personnel from four years to two years for permanent service, and from eight years to four years for reserve service, and by removing the access cap altogether for veterans who've left the service. This will be greatly appreciated and is a particularly good improvement to the scheme.
I know that this will make a huge difference to current and former service personnel in my electorate of Blair, which has one of the largest defence and veterans communities in the country, being home to the RAAF base at Amberley, the largest Air Force base in the country, and home to many Army units as well. As an example of the benefits of the expanded DHOAS, an aviator based at Amberley for two years might expect to access the scheme with a subsidised loan of $402,159 and a maximum monthly interest rate subsidy of up to $422, based on current arrangements. On top of this, any ADF personnel and veterans buying a home in, say, a regional centre like Townsville or Darwin will be able to access the government's Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which will help 10,000 regional Australians enter their first home every year with a deposit of as little as five per cent.
Importantly, the bill allows veterans to apply for their final subsidy certificate at any time after they've separated from the Defence Force, removing the current five-year limitation. It's very welcome that this amendment has been extended to surviving partners who have similarly been impacted by the death of a member, which acknowledges that families in the Defence Force can be deeply affected by military service.
Altogether, the bill reinforces and furthers the Albanese Labor government's commitment to homeownership for defence members and veterans, as well as to veteran wellbeing, and it assists with recruitment and retention in the ADF. This commitment is why the government's first budget, handed down on 25 October, includes $46.2 million over four years to support these changes. We are introducing a bill and we're backing it up with the money. We know that housing entitlements are a key recruitment and retention tool, so reforms to DHOAS will help to meet our ADF workforce targets. The bill assists in positioning the ADF as an employer of choice, assisting serving members and veterans to buy a home and ensuring the scheme can be administered as efficiently, effectively and beneficially as possible.
Before the election, the Morrison government announced the largest increase in the ADF since the Vietnam War. It did that in March 2022. Labor was happy to back that in. We absolutely agree that in these challenging times, particularly in the Indo Pacific, we need to enlarge the ADF. We need to have a bigger, stronger and larger permanent ADF. The problem is that the coalition government failed to provide any details as to how it was going to achieve this. We haven't been hitting the targets and we weren't hitting those targets, going forward, that we needed to in the last nine years. That's why the Labor government committed to undertaking a comprehensive review of ADF recruitment and retention measures to ensure our armed forces have the personnel they need to keep Australia safe and defend our national interests—no more hollowing out of the military.
I am pleased to see that, since the election of the Albanese government, defence has been a priority. We have initiated an urgent review into our ambitious defence workforce targets and recruitment and retention practices, noting that acute skills shortages are being experienced across many sectors of the country, not just in the ADF. At the end of the day, our greatest defence capability is our people, and measures like supporting housing and homeownership will be vitally important to growing and sustaining our ADF. This policy is based on consultation and discussions by caucus members—I know I did so much of it myself during that period—with ADF members, whether it was in Adelaide, Melbourne or Townsville—or in Ipswich or Brisbane, which I undertook, and I'm pleased that the minister has undertaken similar consultation. There was consultation with veterans housing providers. I remember a very important meeting I had with RSL Care in South Australia to discuss this issue, and I thank them for their input when we were in opposition and thank the minister for the work he's doing in government. I'm pleased to see that several ex-service organisations have been consulted on this bill since the election and are supportive of these reforms. I note that the member for Herbert and the shadow minister for veterans' affairs have provided feedback on the scheme, and I welcome that. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition expressed strong support for this bill in his budget reply speech. Bipartisan support is really important.
These changes are due to commence on 1 January 2023, so I applaud the assistant minister for defence and veterans' affairs for bringing this bill forward to ensure that can happen. It's vital we pass this legislation before the end of the year. Doing so will allow ADF members and veterans to benefit from these generous arrangements from next year and will assist them and their families in working out what is going to happen with their housing arrangements in the next calendar year. I would expect these changes to boost homeownership amongst current and former defence personnel, which is a key plank of the Labor government's strategy going forward.
This has been designed with military families. We appreciate the consultation. They have been looking at better posting cycles, which is something this government has been looking at too, and at better transition services and housing solutions. They will support the government's initiative to attack veterans homelessness. One in 10 people last night who were homeless were a veteran sleeping rough. We can't honour them just on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day; we've got to honour them each and every day. Over the next five years $30 million in returns from our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will be allocated to build more housing and to fund specialist services for veterans who are experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness, as part of our broader investments in affordable and social housing.
This extra assistance for the defence and veteran community comes on top of the government's broader measures to address cost-of-living pressures, which have been making it very difficult for Australians, particularly those in the veteran community, to achieve their dream of homeownership. We are making housing more affordable and helping Australians buy homes through initiatives such as the Housing Australia Future Fund and a new National Housing Accord with all levels of government, investors and the construction industry to deliver 20,000 affordable homes.
These reforms to the DHOAS are just one part of our strong election and budget package of tangible support for veterans with a focus on cost-of-living, service delivery, jobs, housing and family support to improve the welfare of veterans and their families. These are not platitudes or token gestures, like dodgy discount schemes and lapel pins, so loved and promoted by the previous coalition government.
Through this bill the government is improving access to homeownership for defence personnel early in their careers and is allowing veterans to access assistance anytime after they have completed their service. This is practical financial, wellbeing help for veterans, their families and defence personnel in Ipswich, Townsville, Brisbane and throughout the country.
In conclusion, it was Labor that created the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. Now the Labor government and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are expanding it by allowing veterans to access the scheme at any time after they've left the ADF. Defence personnel and veterans shouldn't have to worry about where they're going to live after their service is completed. Their housing options should not be vexing them or stressing them in any way.
We are making it easier for current defence personnel to buy their own homes by allowing them access to this scheme after just two years. This won't just give new and future veterans and their families a more secure future; it will help the recruitment of defence personnel. This measure again demonstrates that this government is serious about providing practical support for our current and ex-serving personnel and their families to ensure a better future for the defence and veteran community.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:17): I rise to support the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022. I want to acknowledge in this place the member for Solomon and members on both sides of the House—I'm not sure if there are any on the crossbench—who have served our country in uniform.
We live in interesting times, as the Chinese proverb goes. We are now in a period of the greatest geopolitical instability since the end of the Second World War. Many pressures are being brought to bear on the geopolitical situation right across the world. Who would've thought 12 months ago that there would be a war raging in Europe right now with the illegal and appalling actions of President Putin and Russia with its most recent invasion of Ukraine, which of course follows its invasion of Crimea in 2014? Of course, closer to home we see a greater contested space in the Indo-Pacific region. All of these pressures that are being brought to bear across the world are having significant impacts on the stability and security of our world. At this time it is critical that we as a nation do everything we possibly can to properly equip, tool, recruit and retain our members of the ADF.
We are a very small country when it comes to population. We have only 25 million people. We have a military force of only about 85,000 full-timers and reservists. That is a very small military. Whilst it is small, it is very capable. But there is a certain quality in quantity, and quantity is something that we really do lack considerably. That's why I was very pleased to see—I think it is a step in the right direction—in March of this year, the then Prime Minister announce a 30 per cent increase in our full-time ADF, taking the full-time ADF to 80,000 people, so an increase of 18,500 people at a cost of some $38 billion. But one is still left with the overriding concern that the ADF is still nowhere near big enough. I saw with great interest former Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott talk about the importance of bringing in a form of national service for our young people. Now, whether that is in the ADF or whether that's in some form of civilian service, I think these are things that need to be considered.
The reality is that Australia has been left with its pants down from a military perspective, in many instances. If you look back to World War I and World War II, the writing has been on the wall and yet Australia has simply been unprepared, from a military size—
The bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Sharkie ): Apologies, Member for Fisher. It's about a quorum. If we have a member of government leaving, we will need to suspend the chamber until the chair is resumed.
Sitting suspended from 10:22 to 10:26
(Quorum formed)
Mr WALLACE: The coalition in opposition supports this bill, the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill. It supports the bill because we want to provide and see a strong ADF. We want to see a strong ADF that retains its members. I think, from memory, the ADF has about an 11 per cent churn—that is, 11 per cent of members drop off each year. And one of the good things about the amendments to this bill is that it will encourage—we hope—members to remain in the ADF. That is very, very important, because it's obviously a lot easier to retain a member than it is to train a member from scratch. The ADF relies on its experienced members, so it makes common sense to be able to provide certain incentives for its members to stay as long as they possibly can. I think the minimum period of service in the ADF is four years—I think that's right.
This bill will amend certain eligibility requirements for this scheme, which provides assistance to members with paying a home loan. We know that members of the ADF move around a lot. They move from base to base every couple of years, and it's often difficult for them to put down roots. We know that many ADF members find it difficult to buy a home whilst they're in service, simply because they are moving around a lot. This bill proposes amending the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008, which provides certain incentives and assistance measures for ADF members to buy a home. That act also provides assistance to members—effectively, it costs them less—to pay for their mortgages. And that's a good thing for the men and women who serve in our uniform to represent this country. Everything that we can do to lighten their load is a good thing.
I won't trouble the chamber too much with the eligibility requirements. I do note that the amendments to the bill are lessening the period for which members are required to serve to be eligible. This actually could have a bit of a perverse outcome. Because if members are able to access the scheme earlier, in some cases in as little as two years, we have some concerns around whether it will actually incentivise ADF members to leave earlier and that would be counterproductive to what we are setting out to do.
One of the other concerns we have is that there appears to have been no real examination of what the cost is going to be. Presumably, because the government is reducing the eligibility periods, more people will become eligible and will take it up, and fair enough. But there's no real insight on the part of the government as to what it's going to cost. Whilst the opposition supports the concept of providing assistance to our ADF members, a responsible government should be able to tell us what this is going to cost and there's very little detail around that. Equally, there's no real detail about whether the government has provided additional assistance to the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs is going to be administering this scheme. In fact, it does administer the scheme. But with the additional expected uptake, there's been no real measurement or quantification as to the amount of additional work that's going to be needed to be undertaken by DVA officers. This is a concern, because we know all too well that the claims periods currently being undertaken by DVA are too long. We've all heard stories, particularly in the ongoing Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, about the delays experienced by veterans in DVA. If the government are not throwing any additional money to administer this scheme then it's axiomatic that they are going to have to take people away from their existing work to administer this scheme. I have some concerns around that. Perhaps members of the government might want to address in their speeches how the government is going to deal with this issue. Because what we don't want to see—member for Solomon, I'm sure that you agree with me on this—is additional manpower, additional resources being taken away from working through claims of veterans. This is something that the government really should address, because we don't want to see to those waiting periods blow out.
Having said all of that and having said that the opposition supports this bill, I have a number of other concerns. The government have been out there today trumpeting the bill and their support for veterans. But what they give on one hand, they take away with the other. I know that three veterans wellbeing centres were cut from Queensland in the budget announced just two weeks ago—three! They were Mackay, Wide Bay and South East Queensland. The government cut $22.3 million from veterans wellbeing centres. The member for Solomon and all those members opposite who are abreast of these issues should know that my veterans on the Sunshine Coast are up in arms about this. If they want to go to a veterans wellbeing centre, they've got to travel to Ipswich or jump on a plane and go up to Townsville. That is unsatisfactory.
Across the country we're seeing a net reduction of four veterans wellbeing centres that we funded. Three of those are in Queensland, as I said. I'm not quite sure why this government doesn't like Queenslanders—or perhaps veterans in Queensland—but three of the four centres that were cut are in Queensland. If this government was fair dinkum about supporting veterans, as it says it is, then it would restore that $22.3 million in funding to veterans wellbeing centres and it would do it today. I can tell you that veterans in my electorate are up in arms about this. They are very, very, very unhappy with the government on this issue.
One of the other things that I want to use my remaining time to talk about—and this goes to the issue of retaining and attracting ADF personnel—is what I loosely refer to as an Australian equivalent of the American GI bill. I am absolutely passionate about Australia introducing an Australian version of a GI bill. When they transition into civilian life, many ADF members find it difficult to use the skills that they've learnt in the ADF. I'm not suggesting for a second that that happens across the board, but certainly some have issues with transitioning. I believe that the Australian government has an obligation not only to provide assistance to put roofs over veterans' heads but also to educate them. I would like to see an Australian equivalent of a GI bill where Australian veterans are provided financial assistance to study while they are in the ADF—whether it's a law degree or an arts degree or whatever it might be—to give them that successful transition. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr BURNELL (Spence) (10:37): I rise to speak in favour of the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022. On indulgence, I would like to acknowledge a couple of fellow vets in the chamber: the member for Menzies, who is my co-chair in the parliamentary friends of veterans group, and the former chair of the group, the member for Solomon, who are in the chamber with me whilst I give this speech.
This bill is yet another example of the Albanese Labor government's following through on an election commitment. This election commitment is one part of Labor's plan to address the pressures our veterans are experiencing. If passed, this bill will come into effect on 1 January 2023. New applicants to the scheme from that day onward will be able to take advantage of the provisions of the bill, many of which I'll outline broadly. The bill will also allow applicants who are veterans to reapply where they were previously refused a subsidy certificate because they had not completed their qualifying service period or they had made their application outside of the five-year post-separation limit.
At its core, the bill fulfills Labor's election commitment to boost homeownership for defence members and veterans. This is at a time when we know veterans are amongst the fastest growing groups experiencing homelessness. According to the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, veterans comprise 5.6 per cent of our total homeless, with an average of 6.3 years of sleeping rough or in other forms of emergency accommodation. This over-representation is a true mark of shame for this country.
This plan involves several key elements, many of which are already underway through legislation before the parliament or funded through budget measures. Other measures include the delivery of veteran wellness hubs, one of which is to be located in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, namely in my electorate of Spence. This bill amends the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008, expanding the eligibility criteria for the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme as part of the ADF's recruitment and retention package.
The Australian National Audit Office have produced a number of reports concerning the Australian Defence Force and its ability to recruit and retrain personnel. The main audits occurred in 2000 and 2003. The latter used a line that sticks with me:
Expenditure on retention has the potential to be much more cost effective than expenditure on recruitment and training.
The Australian Defence Force is an employer, though not one like many others. It doesn't have competitors in the traditional sense but it does have competitors for its human capital. Whether it's mining companies poaching members for their skill sets, such as driving heavy vehicles, or airlines poaching members of the RAAF, this is competition just the same. And, just like that, the money that was invested to train that ADF member will now benefit a private employer. It goes without saying that it is often far cheaper in the long run to keep personnel you've invested time and resources into, upskilling them further over time, than to start afresh after attrition has set in, requiring you to fill vacancies rather than expand capacity. This bill definitely moves things further in the right direction. If this encourages someone to think twice before responding to a headhunter looking for highly skilled and highly trained employees, then it is money well spent.
Without going through the bill clause by clause, I will highlight some of the operative clauses for the sake of brevity. The main change is the proposed minimum service periods one needs in order to access the various tiers of subsidies through the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. This means that a permanent member would need to have served a minimum of two, four and eight years for tiers 1, 2 and 3 respectively. For tiers 1 and 2, this threshold has been halved. For reserve members, however, that minimum service level is now down from eight years to four years, 12 years to eight years, and 16 years to 12 years for tier 1, 2 and 3 subsidies respectively—a marked improvement.
It is no secret that housing affordability is one of the biggest issues and challenges that we need to tackle. This bill aims to do so in a measured way with a dual purpose. This is a bill that aims to assist those at all ends of their time in the Australian Defence Force. This bill aims to make life easier for current-serving, permanent ADF members, reservists and veterans alike. The bill allows veterans to apply for their final subsidy through this scheme, at any time that suits them, after separating from the ADF. This is a big step forward in assisting veterans to adjust to civilian life without being bogged down with administrative hurdles.
These provisions pair well with others in the bill that ensure that, in the event of a genuine error, mistake or accident occurring—such as transferring funds into a loan account by mistake—the subsidy would still be paid. This is more of a human approach and one that many veterans have approached me to indicate seldom occurs from any form of government initiative, department or scheme. We are at least making some progress now.
There is a reason why this is of significance. Within my state of South Australia, the division of Spence contains the largest number of DVA clients, including families, to a fairly clear extent. My electorate of Spence hosts Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh, or RAAF Base Edinburgh, where many currently serving Defence Force members perform vital functions to keep us safe. On indulgence, I'd like to thank all of our defence personnel across the country for their service. On the other side of the coin, concerning defence personnel, many ADF members have established roots within the local community after realising that their duties at RAAF Base Edinburgh are to continue for a number of years. We know that on census night 1,316 permanent Australian Defence Force members and 284 reservists were in Spence. This number is dwarfed by the 4,487 veterans in Spence, people who have previously served in the Australian Defence Force. That is 6,000 people in my electorate who either are serving or have served. This number doesn't begin to count their respective families, either, and with the expected expansion of RAAF Base Edinburgh slated for the not too distant future, it is perfectly logical to deduce that the number of active defence personnel within Spence is only likely to rise.
Despite all the talk about Labor's veterans' policy in the lead-up to the election, I'm glad that, no matter what stage of the sitting week we are in and no matter the volume of controversial and hard-fought legislation and motions in this place, it is heartening that we are able to safely assume that, despite whatever else that is happening, we can stand united across the chamber on matters involving improving the quality of life and living standards of veterans and defence personnel in this country. It is in this spirit that I'd like to thank the member for Sturt for his contribution on this bill last night. It was an excellent contribution to this debate, and it was great to see one of my fellow South Australians in this place echoing very similar sentiments to my own concerning an issue that is very important to my heart.
In the relatively short time since my election to this place, I have thoroughly enjoyed my dealings with the local defence and veterans communities. In fact, after the conclusion of this sitting week I will be holding a roundtable with local veterans groups concerning the progress of our veterans wellness hub. The success of our upcoming event remains to be seen. However, the success of the previous event in Spence for the veterans wellness hub could not have enjoyed such a high level of success had it not been for the attendance and involvement of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, the member for Burt, and the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Kingsford Smith. The assistance and guidance provided by you both, along with your respective offices, have helped me to engage with local veterans groups in the knowledge that the Albanese Labor government really does intend to follow through with its election commitments and with its assistance to veterans. I'd also like to thank the member for Blair for his assistance back when I was merely a candidate who had only recently been preselected. Those three members are proof to me that this government cares strongly about its men and women serving in the Australian Defence Force and those who once served in the ADF.
We know full well that we have to do our part to serve those who have served and those who continue to serve. Anything less would be a loss of faith, one that the heart of our nation should not endure. I am confident that this bill is going to make a great deal of a difference to the lives of many Australian Defence Force members, reservists, veterans and their families, and for that I commend this bill.
Mr WOLAHAN (Menzies) (10:49): I acknowledge fellow veterans the members for Spence and Solomon. In various capacities, we've actually served together. We started off as reservists in the 8/7 Royal Victorian Regiment, which is a very proud regiment. I think there are many names from the 8th/7th Battalion engraved on our war memorial, many of whom were Victoria Cross winners and many of whom fought in every conflict. It's one of the oldest reserve battalions in the country.
Member for Solomon, we did commando selection together, so we got to see each other at our best and our worst, where all of the layers were peeled away with no sleep and no food. It was a wonderful life experience that I'm glad that I shared with you. I also acknowledge that we're both co-chairs of the parliamentary friends of veterans group. It's important that, wherever we can, we make sure that it's bipartisan because, I think, both major parties take this seriously and we do our best. We might differ on the margins, but at the core interests of veterans we're as one, as we should be.
I rise to speak to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022. I'm actually someone who has one of these home loans. It's on my declaration of interests. I acknowledge that the pay that we get here is way above what the average Australian gets, but it's probably something that wasn't quite noticed with lower interest rates. Because the scheme is tagged to how the interest rate is, as interest rates go up I think people will notice it more. Those who use it will really appreciate it, especially as the cost of living rises in so many areas, so making this more available is a really good thing and a timely thing to do.
Serving our nation is a privilege, and it demands the most and the best of us. Before I go to the bill, I would like to give some historical context to a scheme like this. The chamber might not be aware, but this bill belongs in the best traditions of the Australian Public Service. After the First World War—Australia's greatest generation—the government decided to come to soldiers' aid, and they did it in the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1917, which was designed to deliver en-masse support for soldier property ownership. In the Victorian experience of that, in Mallee, Gippsland and the Goulburn Valley, over 10,000 soldiers found a home. The government acquired a million hectares, and a formidable deciding body was established. It was called the Victorian Lands Purchase and Administration Board.
All of the inputs was celebrated and the funding was paraded. They didn't have social media then to tell everyone what was happening, so they put it on bills and posters and in the newspapers. Everyone thought, what a great thing! But, often, the devil is in the detail, and the execution didn't turn out too well. In some states, more than half of those resettled did not remain in their properties in the succeeding decades. In 1926—and we know what was happening in the 1920s in Australia—3,000 walked from their homes in Victoria. That's what we saw in the United States in 2008, when people dropped the keys on the kitchen bench and walked out of their house, creating the financial crisis. But it happened in Australia too.
It was a bright and shiny idea. It had all of the press plaudits. It was just defied by the reality and the times—the economic crisis that the nation faced. Even though they were gifted land, many could not afford their homes. Many were without work and they didn't have the means to sustain it. There was a royal commission that followed it, and this was in the era where royal commissions were rare, unlike the times we find ourselves in now. The verdict was clear: the scheme had overwhelmingly failed.
I'm not raising this because I feel that this scheme is in that territory. I'm raising this because we should always learn from the past and the mistakes that are made, even the past as distant as a century ago. There is an important lesson from that experience, and it's that support for veterans does not work in a vacuum. We should not be deluded into thinking that we might offer a cash scheme, a simple loan, and then that's it: we've done our job; we don't need to think about it anymore. We should not avert our gaze from the complexity of these challenges and the onus on us to make sure that the implementation of a scheme is as it should be.
Maintaining a long career in the armed forces is truly a challenge. It's one that's not easily reduced to a cold calculation of financial entitlements.
I do know that these programs—often, conceived by well-meaning public servants here in Canberra—need to be stress-tested. If we get them wrong, it is not we who pay the price; it is the veterans at the other end. So we should make sure that this scheme is continuously reviewed.
Another historical context for the purpose of the scheme is the concept of homeownership. Homeownership, I think, is core to our sense of fairness as Australians. It is core to economic security. We know that—whether you have a partner or you are single, you've been divorced or someone has died—if you have your own home, your financial security is entirely from different people who don't. So the more Australians we can have owning their own home, the better and fairer a nation we will be.
When you look at the statistics on homeownership for younger people, they're not good enough. And that failure is on my party as much as it is on any other. The challenge is on all of us, but obviously the Labor Party is in government. We need more young people owning a home.
The founder of my party, Robert Menzies, in the depths of World War II, when he could have thought about nothing but national security, turned his mind to homeownership. In his forgotten generation speech, he singled it out as one of the most important things for this country—even in World War II, when our very survival was at stake. He spoke about people having a home of their own into which they could withdraw and in which they could be among their friends.
A home into which a veteran can withdraw and be among their friends is the greatest gift that we can give a young veteran. If they have done two years of service, or four years as a reservist, we are talking about young Australians in their 20s who have their whole future ahead of them. So if they're making that decision, incentivised by this scheme, to buy a home, then I think we've done a great thing for them.
Turning to the actual bill and the policy detail, if we look at the implementation for the year 2020-21, over 6,000 applications were made and over 3,600 subsidies were paid. So the program enjoys growing demand. It's well-regarded. When I was serving, I know that there wasn't a serving member who wasn't aware of it. And it's not just the subsidy; it's that decision to put their money towards a house that a young person might not otherwise make. So in a way, we're sort of giving them a nudge, like a parent would, to do the right thing for themselves.
The critical terms of the bill specify reductions in the required minimum years of service, and I think this is an important thing. When a person put on our uniform, as a reservist or a full-time member, they signed a contract that had a term that meant they would lay their life down for this nation. Whether they served more than a day or a week, or served overseas or domestically, that was a contract they engaged in voluntarily, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude because of that. The change in this bill reducing the time frame is an important change that recognises the importance of that service—because all service matters.
In terms of the monetary context, it is clear, from the recent budget and the pronouncements of the Reserve Bank governor, that inflation is not going away, the cost of living is not going down and interest rates will continue to rise. So, given these headwinds, it is important that the subsidies remain tiered to the median interest rate, with all of the fluctuations that the months and years ahead may present.
Another issue I'd like to note is the actual number of banks that subscribe to this scheme. So, at present, the right to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, or DHOAS, as it's referred to, is implemented by three banks: the National Australia Bank, the Defence Bank and the Australian Military Bank. I think it would be worth reviewing if there is any way for that scheme to be used more broadly. The reason is this: you may have a subsidy given on an interest rate, but if the bank down the road is offering a reduced rate then it's really just a cash transfer to that institution. It would be nice for a veteran to look through the market, like any other young person would, and say, 'I have found for myself and my family the best rate,' and then add onto that the subsidy that is in this scheme.
If it's just limited to three banks and they then add onto that subsidy other fees, charges or a higher interest rate then there's a risk that this scheme is helping not veterans but the National Australia Bank, the Defence Bank and the Australian Military Bank. It should be available to all providers of mortgages. If the only restriction on that is the providers themselves not signing up to it, I plead with them to get on board and offer this to their customers. The most competitive mortgage rate plus the subsidy should be available.
The point has been made by others that one of the risks of reducing eligibility is that it might affect retention. I don't accept that argument. If a reservist or a full-time member is paying a monthly mortgage, they're not going to rush off and change jobs in a hurry. I don't think it's going to affect retention at all. It's just recognising, as it should, that service matters, no matter how long.
I turn to the geopolitical context we find ourselves in. It's not lost on any members of the House that these are graver times than we saw 10 years ago or 20 years ago, principally in our region. We are looking to increase the Defence Force by 30 per cent, and that has bipartisan support. With the low unemployment rates that we have that's not an easy thing to do. This scheme is an extra reason for talented members of the public to sign up to the Defence Force and help get those numbers up. It's just another reason to pick this job over others.
I conclude in the last few minutes where I started. This nation has a great tradition of encouraging veterans into their own home. We didn't always get it right, but with the history of the 1917 act we need to recognise that these schemes live and die by the economic circumstances they are found in. We had a royal commission into the 1917 act because this scheme then clashed with the Great Depression. We are not heading into another great depression—touch wood; I don't want to crash the market today—but we are heading into tough times. This scheme must survive in those tough times.
I commend the government on the amendments. They have our support. We should keep an eye on it as inflation rises and interest rates rise. I repeat my plea that every mortgage provider in the nation gets on board, is there for veterans and uses this scheme. They will be great customers of yours. If you put them first, they will reward you. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (11:03): I can assure the member for Menzies, the previous speaker, that the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme will survive tough times. As we've heard, this was an initiative of the Rudd government, so we're obviously proud of it and we're also proud of these changes that will make it more accessible. As my veteran colleagues and previous speakers have done, I recognise all our men and women in uniform and those who have served. I didn't realise there was such an 8/7RVR mafia in this place.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ): Indeed, Member for Solomon.
Mr GOSLING: I acknowledge the members of this group—the member for Spence, the member for Menzies and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie—and I recognise the service of reservists and full-time members of our Australian Defence Force now and in the future. We hope to fill the ranks of our Australian Defence Force for the times that we face in the future, and this initiative, which Defence rightly calls a retention initiative, is aimed at doing just that—encouraging members to continue serving in the ADF. And it assists them with housing once they move into the reserves or into civilian life more fully.
It's an incentive for members to stay in the ADF because, the longer they serve, the more entitlement they accrue and the longer they can receive assistance through this scheme. So it really helps defence families. When a member passes away, the member's surviving partner may apply for the member's benefits under the scheme as well. So even with the death of a member, not only will groups like Legacy wrap around the family; this scheme will continue to support them. It's very important to many people who serve in uniform and their families and kids.
Since 2008, the scheme has invested in affordable housing for veterans who face difficulties, like all Australians do, when it comes to housing, but I think it's important to note that servicemen and women moving around often has a big effect on their ability to own a home. The scheme gives eligible ADF members and veterans a monthly subsidy payment on the interest portion of their mortgage payments for those who purchase their own home. To give an example from my service, I was posted here to Canberra initially, then to Sydney, Singleton, Bonegilla in Victoria, Wagga in New South Wales, Perth, back to Sydney, Timor-Leste and Arnhem Land, and I worked in security related roles in the Middle East and elsewhere. So you move around a lot in that vocation, and it does make it difficult. We have a large and growing veteran population, and to the great shame of our nation often too many veterans can't find any housing at all. Way too many veterans end up sleeping rough or couch surfing with mates. In fact, I'm told—and there's no reason not to believe this—5,000 veterans will experience homelessness tonight.
A 2019 study by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute found that 5.3 per cent of the recently transitioned ADF population are homeless. That is an astonishing figure, especially considering that the homelessness rate for the general population is at 1.9 per cent. Obviously, that is too high, and there are many initiatives in the budget that's just been handed down by the Albanese Labor government that go towards assisting housing and alleviating homelessness across the spectrum. However, that huge 5.3 per cent is of massive concern. It was, in no small way, part of my motivation to fight so hard in the last term of parliament to get the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide established, because it was clear to me and so many others in the veteran community that there was a direct link between a couple of things—medical discharges, suicidal ideation and suicide, homelessness, and substance abuse.
Of course, in my electorate of Solomon, homelessness is much higher than the national average of 1.9 per cent, and I'm proud of the initiatives in the budget that will help to alleviate some of that. It was great to have St Vincent de Paul Society down here in Canberra recently. That same study found that about two-thirds of recently homeless ADF veterans reported being suicidal at least once in the past year and that's why this royal commission was so necessary. That's higher than the still shocking one-quarter of non-homeless ADF veterans who had reported being suicidal. But as I said, obviously there is a direct link there. This concerns us all. Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I know it would concern you and any other veteran or member of the defence and veterans' community. That's why this bill is so important to me and to so many, and it's been great to hear those opposite support it.
I believe this is a great Labor reform that has stood the test of time, and that's why our government committed at the May election to boost defence homeownership by amending the scheme from 1 January next year. That's exactly what this bill does. The bill recognises that housing affordability is one of the biggest issues facing Australia and it responds to the struggles experienced by veterans during their transition to civilian life that too often ends in homelessness. It helps to give those serving defence members and veterans who need it a hand up to buy their own home. The bill reinforces and furthers the Albanese Labor government's commitment to retention in the Australian Defence Force, as I've mentioned, and to home ownership for members and veterans, which can be so much more difficult due to the nature of the service and the frequent moves required to meet ADF and our nation's needs. Of course, we have talked about veteran wellbeing. This bill is part of a suite of measures to support veterans, their families and members of the Defence Force to get into homeownership. It's a good policy.
In closing, in my electorate, this policy is so important. But the government are actually doing more, because we realise the scope of the issue. I'm proud of this commitment to establishing some supported housing, not only for veterans but for members of our first-responder community too, those who are on the front line every day, whether as a police officer, an ambulance officer, a fire officer, members of border protection—people who are serving our country or our community in uniform. It will be named after Scott Palmer. Scott Palmer was a commando who was tragically killed in Afghanistan, the only Territorian killed in Afghanistan. Like other places around Australia, we will name our veterans and first responder supported living estates after someone who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
It's worth mentioning why this bill is so important for people in my electorate and in other places in the country. When a member separates from the Defence Force, they leave one family and, often, if they don't have family in Darwin, in Palmerston, in the rural area, then they can get lost without that family support. So this supported accommodation will wrap around that veteran and assist them as they make that transition into civilian life. Those wraparound services will save lives. I'm proud of them. I'm proud of this bill and I thank you for your service, Deputy Speaker Wilkie.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I thank you, member for Solomon.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:13): We will be putting a formal request into the government that some land be acquired on the high-speed highway planned west of Townsville, heading west from Townsville and surrounding areas, about 300,000 people, not all that much smaller than Canberra. And along that high-speed highway, which will be about 15, 20 minutes from the Jezzine Barracks in Townsville, the home of the Australian taskforce, we are proposing that there be 2,000 homes built. We are proposing that the army, or the government, do what the person who later became Sir James Foots did. James Foots was an engineer sent to Mt Isa, and he did exactly that: he provided 2,000 homes.
If you do it on a scale like this the cost of the land is fairly negligible. Services might be $15,000, purchase of land—again, fairly negligible—let's just say $30,000, and I've priced a three-bedroom house with two toilets at $140,000. So we could provide a house and land package—if we do this—for $170,000. That will cost the soldier 150 bucks a week. The best part of $50 would go in taxation, but let's call that $40. So he's up for 110 bucks a week—that's what it's going to cost him—and in 6½ years he will own his own house.
The attrition rate in our army is one-eighth—that is, one-eighth of our soldiers are leaving each year. The cost of retraining a soldier is absolutely ginormous. The cost to the government of that attrition rate would be much higher than the $35 million a year that this proposal would cost the government. So for $35 million a year, we will have an army that will be there—the same army and the same personnel—in six years time. And there's the secondary factor that, when they get out, they will own their own house.
I've spent two weeks of my life doing nothing but talking about this, and a lot of time before that when we invited Jacqui Lambie and Heston Russell to come up to Townsville. We held a series of meetings, and over 2,000 people attended those meetings—although a lot of other people wanted to get on the bandwagon. Warfighters Coffee is a cafe in Townsville where about 15 or 20 of us used to meet regularly. The Warfighters Coffee club decided to raise the problem of what happens to soldiers when they get out, and the horrific rates of suicide and trauma.
A very good friend of mine—one of the great Australians—carries around with him a photograph of his platoon. There were about 21 of them in the platoon. Seven of them are all right. Of the other 14, six of them have done away with themselves, and the others are in a very bad way—let's just say addiction and leave it at that, but it's all sorts of addictions. Their lives are pretty much wrecked. My friend carries that photo around with him everywhere he goes. It's been explained to me this way: when you're in the army, you've got a home and you've got security. If you're a single man, the army is your family, and you've got your ordinary family as well. And you've got a secure income. When you get out, your secure income vanishes. Your two families vanish—your army family vanishes, and as often as not your real family vanishes as well. And you've got no home. When those four things hit you, then the outcome is very, very sad indeed.
But if they own their own home—after 6½ years—when they get out, then I think we've got a good chance of keeping their real family together, because there would be no cost for housing at all, and they'd have an income from the army—or an unemployment benefit, if you like. We've been meeting with Soldier On, and I think a lot more work could be done in that area. But I want to return to the housing. This is really very simple, and I speak with considerable authority here, since I was one of the three biggest housebuilders in Queensland—I might have been the biggest housebuilder in Queensland.
I had the First Australians portfolio, and we had enough money to build 400 houses. Thanks to the excellent work of the First Australians that I'd taken in to run the department and the First Australian people on the ground, we built 2,000 houses, not 400. We had enough money to build 400; we built 2,000. They got going and mobilised Work for the Dole labour to the build houses. They got agreement and regulations from the government that all houses in community areas would be built exclusively by local Indigenous labour. The cost of flying people in, paying accommodation—which was enormously costly at a couple of thousand bucks a week—and then flying them out every fortnight was just horrific. We took all those costs out, we provided people that had no income with a serious income, topped up to award wages, and we were able to build 2,000 houses. So I had a lot of experience in building houses.
We can provide for the Army, but, if you're going to take up 2,000 housing blocks, you take up 4,000 housing blocks and you sell 2,000 of them. And, because you're the federal government, you can bypass all the ridiculous impositions referred to very well by the federal Treasurer in the budget this year. He said the real cost of housing is created by the impositions and restrictions placed on it by government rules and regulations. It was wonderful that Mr Chalmers said that because that was absolutely spot on. I'm not going to go into any detail, but I've said it on many occasions in this place: under the mining act, you could buy land in Charters Towers for $7,000; when we went over all these ridiculous impositions from the various regulatory bodies, it went up to $140,000 and settled back to $75,000 to $80,000. We went from $7,000 with no restrictions up to $80,000. So the Treasurer in his budget speech had this dead right.
The Army has at their disposal the ability to bypass all those ridiculous legislations and deliver the land very, very cheaply to themselves and another 2,000 blocks to the public of Townsville, which will virtually pay for the houses. Selling the 2,000 land blocks will pay for the houses. You have to stay in there for 6½ years, and then you'll own your own house in Townsville, which, on average, is worth half a million dollars. So you leave the Army with a wealth of half a million dollars, as well as your Army pension. That's what we want to offer the people of Townsville and the troops based in Townsville, and that's what we intend to do. I give notice of that today. We'll put the detailed proposals before the minister in the next month, before Christmas. We would urge everyone in the House to look at this sort of approach and use the powers of the federal government and the defence heads of power to simply bypass all the ridiculous rubbish and rigmarole that you have to go through at the present moment to do a subdivision.
My own wife who did a number of tiny subdivisions—two or three housing blocks—said she'll never do it again because of the cost and the time. On the other end of the spectrum is the biggest developer in North Queensland, Sir Robert Norman's son, Bob Norman, head of the North Queensland development association and probably the most important person in North Queensland. He owned a thousand acres in the most beautiful place on earth, the Atherton Tablelands, which is 3,000 feet above sea level. It's the only part of Australia that's green all the time. He resold the thousand acres without doing a single subdivision. He said, 'I haven't got enough time in my life, nor am I prepared to take the risks because you don't necessarily know whether you're going to get the right to subdivide, or the cost imposition upon the subdivision will be such that you won't be able to make money out of it.' So he just threw his hands up and said, 'We're not going to do it.'
In the houses that have been built in Townsville and Cairns I can put my hand through the window and shake hands with my neighbour when he puts his hand through the window. There is not enough room for a pot plant, let alone a tree. And one of these areas is called Bushland Beach! If there's one thing that's not at Bushland Beach it's bushland! Two, five, six, seven, eight kilometres of trees were felled. If that was a proper house, a quarter acre, those trees would have been restored. I'm not preoccupied, like a lot of people in this place, with CO2, though I am in favour of us cutting back on CO2. But reducing an area to a barren, galvanised-iron roof wasteland from a beautiful nature wonderland called Bushland Beach is what is happening in all new developments in Townsville and all new developments in Cairns.
It can be overcome by a simple imposition and action by the federal government overriding the ridiculous state government and local authorities that have put in place so many restrictions that the price of land has shot straight through the roof! I bought half a million acres one night—I'll admit, under the influence of some celebrations from some cattle that I'd sold—that a friend of mine was selling for $25,000! Land is worth nothing in North Queensland once you get a little bit away from the coast. If you put a two-lane fast highway, where we're allowed to do 120 kilometres an hour, west of Townsville, you're into that cheap land just 40 or 50 kilometres from Townsville. I'm not saying it's as cheap as what we purchased that night, but there's no comparison with the cost of land in Australia or the cost of land in Townsville now.
The opportunity is available, and the government can simply act and make it happen. At least let us do that for the people who risk their lives in the defence of this country and whose life after they leave the Army is a very, very sad story for which this country should be ashamed.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:27): Thank you for your service, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, and thank you for the service provided to our armed services by all of those who now sit in the parliament. I also say thank you to those members, including the member for Blair, who I know has spoken on this particular motion. Thank you for your contribution. Thank you also to the government for bringing forward the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill. This is important. We said at the outset when we returned to opposition that, if there was good legislation and if there was good policy, even if it was going to cost money, then it would be a sensible thing for the opposition to support.
I acknowledge the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is in the chamber. I previously held that role in 2017-18, as well as being an assistant minister for defence in 2016. I know how important this particular piece of legislation is for those who have served.
I listened very carefully to the member for Kennedy, and in a wide-ranging speech he said some good things that we, as legislators in this place, can adhere to. He is quite right when he says that land availability and planning and development are things that are holding back people's ability to get into their first home and to invest, and that has therefore caused pressures on the rental market. Whether it's in Defence or whether it's in civilian society in general, homeownership at the moment is one of the critical issues, particularly in regional Australia.
I come from Wagga Wagga. It is a garrison city. It is home of the soldier—you know that, Deputy Speaker Wilkie. Every army recruit does their 13 weeks of basic training at Blamey Barracks at the Army Recruit Training Centre in Kapooka, and we in Wagga Wagga are very proud of that base. Since 1939 we've had a Royal Australian Air Force presence, and, if you spend any given time in the RAAF, chances are you will end up at Forest Hill. Since 1993 we've had a navy presence. I know there's currently a lot of water around Wagga Wagga, with the wet weather events we've had in recent times, but, back in the early 1990s when the Navy was establishing itself in Wagga Wagga, it was considered a long way from the nearest drop of seawater. It still is. There wasn't much water about, but it's important that we have that navy presence attached to the RAAF base in our city.
I was the Assistant Minister for Defence at the time the white paper was coming out in January-February 2016, and I am proud that we were able to see fit as a government to invest $1 billion or thereabouts in much-needed infrastructure upgrades for both the Forest Hill RAAF airbase and the Kapooka army base. Particularly at the air force base some of the infrastructure dated back to the 1950s. If you're being accommodated on base, you need the best accommodation. I appreciate the work that Defence Housing Australia has done and have seen that first-hand.
I know Sandy Macdonald, a former senator in this place from 1993 until 2008, and I appreciate the role he has played with Defence Housing Australia, and I commend him for that. It's important that former parliamentarians play their part in giving back, and former senator Macdonald has certainly done that. I know that I am proud of the work that we did together, particularly in Western Australia, to create more housing opportunities for our serving personnel. This creates opportunities for soldiers, aviators and sailors to get into homeownership whilst they're serving and when they return to civilian life.
As the member for Kennedy and others have indicated, it is difficult for soldiers, aviators and sailors to adjust when they leave the force, leave the structure, leave the support mechanisms and leave the military family and go back into civilian life. Sometimes they haven't made those investments and sometimes they haven't thought beyond their uniformed service to consider homeownership. I appreciate that $11½ billion of support is provided through the Department of Veterans' Affairs each and every year, and I appreciate that that's largely uncapped. I know the new minister understands and appreciates the importance of veterans, and I acknowledge that. DVA supports 340,000 veterans and their families every year.
Whilst I appreciate that, I'm digressing a tad. If any veterans either read this in the Hansard or are listening to this broadcast, I would like them to know that Wagga Wagga will have hearings—hearing block 8—into the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide from 28 November to 2 December at the Mercure hotel. Chief Commissioner Nick Kaldas APM supported by Dr Peggy Brown AO and the Hon. James Douglas KC have taken those important hearings to Wagga Wagga, and it's important that anybody who wants to make a submission can do so, because Wagga Wagga is a garrison city. Many veterans who come and serve in our city return to our city after their service and live there.
That's why this particular piece of legislation, the Defence Homeownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022, is so important. We want to see our veterans, those who've proudly worn the uniform, have homeownership. It's not good enough. It wasn't good enough under a coalition government and it's not good enough now under a Labor government that we have veterans, those who've served our nation, those who've put their lives on the line and those who've taken the ultimate risk, living in cars and under bridges.
I appreciate full well that some veterans don't necessarily want to be associated with or attached or connected to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I fully appreciate that some have had breakdowns in communications with DVA.
But I also want to point out that DVA does an amazing and remarkable job. Those people who work in the Public Service for that department are there to serve those who've served us—those who've served our nation—and those people in DVA do the very best job they can. Can they do better? Of course they can—everyone can; we know that. But help is there for those who seek it, for those who need it, for those who want it. And, if at first you fail to get that support, please try, try again, because DVA is there to support those people.
I appreciate that Bob and Gladys Bak—who were both awarded OAMs and who live in my electorate at Bethungra, and have an organisation called the Integrated Service People's Association of Australia—do what they can, as well, to connect veterans to support, to help mechanisms, to assistance. They work hand-in-hand with the DVA. Sometimes they butt heads. But, by and large, generally, they are very, very good at getting the support that local Riverina veterans need.
I know that Charlotte Webb, working with the local RSL, and Dave Gardiner, the Wagga Wagga sub-branch president, and others in the Wagga Wagga area, are doing their best to give support. I know that those at Pro Patria, who've proposed a veterans wellness centre for North Ashmont in our city, are also doing their best to connect veterans to the support that they need. I would like to think that the federal government, in its May budget, will see fit to honour the $5 million that was provided by the former coalition government to establish a wellness centre, or centres, in Wagga Wagga.
I know that the member for Herbert, in his shadow ministerial role, has spoken passionately in this debate, and he made some very pertinent points. He described the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme as a great scheme. And of course he's right—we know that; the minister appreciates that. He said that it's a scheme that means that, when you're serving, you have that support to help you get into homeownership. He talked about his experience of getting into defence, into the Australian Army, as a raw-boned 17-year-old, and about his background, coming from social housing and from a single-parent family. He described his mum as an awesome single mother, raising three children. He expressed the view that he found it difficult to save—as many 17-year-olds, as many teenagers and people in their early 20s, back then, found it difficult to save. I appreciate that. Even when I was first married, with mortgage rates hovering north of 18 per cent, it was very difficult.
And these days, with the pressure on the cost of living, it is difficult to save. But this legislation—and I commend the government for bringing it forward—provides that hope.
I know the member for McEwen spoke in favour of this particular legislation. I know he knows, in his electorate in Victoria, for the veterans that he serves and represents, how important it is to give them that hope—to give them that ability to get into homeownership.
We do not want our veterans having to sleep rough. We do not want them doing that when they get out of the service.
And they do find it difficult, sometimes, to adjust—they absolutely do. I acknowledge that, having been to Camp Baird in the United Arab Emirates and spoken to a number of serving soldiers who were transitioning in and out of Afghanistan and other deployments. Some of them were talking about their eventual retirement—which was, for them, not going to be that long away—and the concerns that they had as to adjusting back into civilian life. Owning a home is a big aspect, a big part, of that, and we want, as a parliament, to make sure that we give them the very best opportunity to do just that.
I know that the member for Herbert spoke about the DHOAS being introduced by the Department of Defence on 1 July 2008 to assist Australian Defence Force members to achieve homeownership. It's a retention initiative. It aims and encourages members to continue to serve in the ADF by giving them the ability to get into their, potentially, first home. I appreciate that it is going to come at a cost—in 2022-23, $4.8 million; in the following financial year, $11.3 million; in 2024-25, $13.9 million; in 2025-26, $16.2 million, at a total of $46.2 million—but what are our veterans worth?
These are the people we will honour, commemorate and celebrate in two days time, on Armistice Day, when we will pause and acknowledge the cessation of hostilities on the Western Front and other theatres of war in 1918 to end what was called the Great War, or World War I. No war is great; we know that. It's only right that, as members of parliament, we pause and lay wreaths. That is ceremonial, but it's important, and we do mean it—our acknowledgement and respect, the ultimate respect, for those people who've paid the ultimate sacrifice. But, whilst acknowledging that, we should also take the opportunity in this place to make a difference for our veterans. We should do what we can to support and help those people whose names are etched on memorials, having served in wars past and in peacekeeping missions, and those families who have lost loved ones. We need to do what we can in legislation such as this and the Veterans Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill, which will follow this current motion. We need to do what we can to make sure we pass good legislation, and that is why the coalition is supporting this bill.
It is good legislation, and I thank the government and, in particular, the relevant minister for bringing it forward. I acknowledge that they are trying to do everything they can, as we did in government, to support our veterans. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith—Assistant Minister for Defence, Assistant Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Assistant Minister for the Republic) (11:42): I want to thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022. This bill demonstrates the commitment the Albanese Labor government made to boosting homeownership for defence members and veterans and to assisting veterans transitioning from military life to civilian life. As part of the government's election commitments, the bill will amend the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme to expand access to the scheme by providing defence members with access to benefits earlier in their career. The qualifying period will be reduced to two years for serving ADF personnel and to four years for reservists. The bill will also allow veterans to apply for their final subsidy certificate at any time after they've separated from the Australian Defence Force by removing the current five-year limitation. This will ensure that veterans can access the scheme at a time that suits them without feeling pressured to do so in a set period.
These amendments will mean better outcomes for defence members, veterans and their families, reinforcing the government's commitment to retention in the Australian Defence Force, to homeownership for members and veterans as well as to veterans' wellbeing. The bill also helps our defence personnel and veterans with the cost-of-living pressures that all Australians are feeling with regard to housing, which are making it increasingly difficult to achieve that great Australian dream of homeownership. Labor created the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme and now the Albanese Labor government is expanding it. I commend the bill to the House once again. Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:45): I'm pleased to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022. Australians owe a debt of gratitude to our ADF personnel and veterans. We have a solemn duty to look after them—especially our most disabled veterans, who can't work because of injuries sustained in the service of their country.
The former Morrison government loved to talk up their defence and national security credentials, and to mouth platitudes to veterans, but the reality is: they completely neglected the ex-service community and their families, and they presided over a crisis in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Remember how, despite overwhelming support for a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide, the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, had to be dragged kicking and screaming to establish one last year, after Labor called for one back in 2019? While many struggling veterans waited years for their compensation processes to be dealt with, the former government chronically underfunded and understaffed the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which had a backlog of over 60,000 claims, including many for disabled service pensions. In the words of the former veterans' affairs minister—the member for Calare, no less—their neglect and inaction was nothing less than a national disgrace. It took the former minister threatening to resign over funding shortfalls in DVA to prompt the Morrison government to increase resources for claims processing, only to rip away $430 million from the rest of the department's budget, as we discovered after the election in evidence given to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.
There's probably no issue that typifies the coalition's arrogance and tin ear when it comes to veterans' issues more than the totally and permanently incapacitated, or TPI, pension. The fact is that the TPI Federation had been raising concerns about the adequacy of the TPI payment for around nine years, but the Liberal-National government completely ignored them. Before the 2019 election, the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, raised expectations that he would increase the TPI payment by committing to a review of the pension and telling the TPI Federation that they had a 'compelling case for greater compensation'. He raised expectations.
The TPI review conducted by former senior public servant Mr David Tune would report back after the election. It was really just a cynical marketing exercise to placate veterans and buy votes. Unfortunately, many veterans fell for it. I remember being on a polling booth on election day in 2019 at Raceview State School and hearing veterans say they were going to vote Liberal because Scott Morrison was apparently going to fix the TPI issue. Following the election, the TPI Federation revealed they'd had limited consultation with the Tune review. The review met with the TPI Federation only once so they could put their case forward. However, shockingly, it completely dismissed the group's submissions, and they weren't even given a copy of the report.
The review, when completed in August 2019, was buried under the cloak of cabinet in confidence until the delayed October 2020 budget. After sitting on the report for more than a year, the government finally announced that, far from increasing the TPI payment, all they were going to offer was modest rent assistance to about 10 per cent of TPI veterans—around 2,700 people—who were living in private rental accommodation, leaving most TPIs disgusted that they would miss out on any form of increased assistance.
So, after raising the TPI Federation's hopes before the 2019 election, the former coalition government went on to dash them after the election. It was another case of bad faith—all announcement, no delivery—and it showed that veterans couldn't trust the coalition at the last election.
To add insult to injury, in response to Labor's questions in Senate estimates it was revealed that these benefits were due to start in September 2022, after the election—in two years—to allow for changes to legislation and IT systems. In other words, it would have been years before the people who were acknowledged by the Tune review as being in desperate need of help actually received assistance. Remember that this was only 2,700 veterans. It was only after pressure from Labor and TPI veterans that the start date was brought forward to January 2022.
As the former shadow minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel, I took the time to meet with and listen to the concerns of TPI veterans and especially the TPI Federation and their president, Ms Pat McCabe, and Peter Thornton, who had undertaken extensive analysis of TPI pension adequacy over the years. I engaged with the Australia Defence Association and Executive Director Neil James, as well as groups like the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, who agreed that there was a good case for an increase in the TPI payment. In response, I resolved to refer this matter to an independent Senate investigation so that TPI veterans could have their say. To that end I worked with Labor senators to establish a Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry in March last year to examine the adequacy of the TPI payment. That was ably chaired by the late former Labor senator Kimberley Kitching, who did a fantastic job in that inquiry.
The committee found that submitters, including the TPI Federation, had 'made a persuasive case for a fair and just structural increase in the AGR'—the above the general rate—'component of the TPI payment to help restore the relative value of the payment and recognise and replace TPI veterans' loss of income'. The committee recommended a modest increase in the TPI payment and left it up to the government to give further consideration to the exact level of the increase.
What was so interesting in that inquiry was the fact that even the secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Liz Cosson, conceded that the government had raised expectations and that the TPI Federation had made a strong case for an increase in the TPI pension. Ms Kate Pope, a DVA official, did not even attempt to defend the government's position and agreed with the view that compensation for TPI veterans was insufficient. Based on all the submissions and evidence, the committee recommended that the government increase the TPI payment.
At the time Labor welcomed this and called on the Morrison government to respond to the committee's unanimous recommendation. Once again the Morrison government dragged their heels and eventually tabled a response on 1 October, completely ignoring the committee's recommendation. It was another slap in the face for TPI veterans. Ironically, some LNP backbenchers had said that this was the most deserving issue in the veteran community, yet their Prime Minister completely ignored them.
What's more, late last year the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide heard evidence from the TPI Federation that a lack of support for TPIs had had a terrible impact on their mental health and wellbeing. As the shadow minister I was determined to do the right thing for our disabled veterans, who put their lives on the line for our country, so I was proud to announce before the election that an Albanese Labor government would introduce a permanent $1,000 increase in the annual rate of the special rate of disability pension, or TPI payment, for eligible disabled veterans from 1 January 2023.
It was a pleasure to work with the TPI Federation in developing this policy, and I'm grateful for their support and the endorsement of Labor's commitment during the election campaign. This bill before the House delivers on that commitment. It is now a budget measure. It will provide a boost of $38.46 per fortnight. This will provide additional financial support to around 27,000 TPI pensioners, at a cost of $97.9 million over four years, to ensure our most disabled and vulnerable veterans are not left behind.
Let's be clear: the TPI payment is for life, it's tax exempt, it's not means tested and it's not offset by superannuation, but it can be by other compensation assistance. For a person to be a TPI recipient, particularly at above the general rate, they have to have 70 per cent or greater incapacity, have to be aged less than 65 years on making application, have to not be able to work for more eight hours per week due to service related conditions alone and have had to suffer a loss of earnings. These are the most disabled veterans in the country, so Labor is giving them an increase in their payment—something the coalition government refused to do.
This budget measures bill today is consistent with the Albanese Labor government's commitment in our first budget to deliver responsible cost-of-living relief. This TPI bonus means the payment is comparable with the national minimum wage and, crucially, greater than the after-tax national minimum wage. I know some people will feel it does not go far enough but there is a lot of pressure on the budget and this increase will help maintain the relative value of the payment over time. The measure will provide extra financial support to TPI veterans and their families on top of regular indexation increases every March and September. The top-up is comparable to a structural increase in the special rate of $50 per fortnight, around 5.75 per cent, separate to regular indexation measures introduced when the coalition government—the Howard government—did listen to veterans in July 2007 and backdated it to March 2007. The then Labor government—the Rudd government—delivered a five per cent, or around $16 per fortnight, increase to the general rate from March 2008, which also flowed through to the special rate. The increase in the TPI payment is due to commence on 1 January 2023.
I congratulate and thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Burt, for what he is doing in bringing forward this bill to ensure this can happen. Given the urgency, I'm calling on the opposition and crossbench to do everything they can to facilitate its passage as soon as possible. The coalition has a woeful record in the space in the last nine years. The least they can do is back this in now. After all, as the former Prime Minister, member for Cook said:
The fact that TPI veterans are not able to earn an income as a result of their service to our nation means that their loss of income during what would have been their working life should be appropriately recognised and replaced.
It's a pity he did not act on it.
Of course, this extra assistance to TPI veterans comes on top of the government's other measures to ease the cost of living for all Australians, like cheaper medicine and expanding access to the Commonwealth seniors healthcare card, while recognising the special circumstances of TPI veterans and their families face. This TPI boost is just one plank in our strong election and budget package of practical support for veterans with a focus on the cost of living, service delivery, jobs, housing and family support for veterans—not platitudes, not token gestures like dodgy discount schemes and lapel pins. Veterans and their families can have faith they now have a government and a Prime Minister who have their backs, who treat them with the dignity they deserve and who give them financial support. The new Labor government's plan to repair the coalition's decade of damage will restore services veterans and their families can count on to replace neglect with respect and financial support.
The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is an important opportunity for the government to ensure veterans have better access to the support they deserve. The government is also developing a pathway to implement the royal commission's recommendations to simplify the legal framework for veterans' compensation and rehabilitation, and it's not beyond our will or wisdom to make sure we have a code that covers the VEA, the MRCA and the DRCA legislation. The government is investing $233.9 million over four years to recruit another 500 staff in the DVA to speed up compensation claims processing, something the former coalition government refused to do. We are ending the outsourcing and privatisation of the department. In addition, $87 million over two years will be allocated to improve veterans' access to support services. I am very pleased to see the $46.7 million for 10 veterans and family hubs across the country, including one in my electorate of Blair. The coalition refused to do this by the2019 election, having promised they would do a veterans hub in my electorate in 2016, breaking their promise to the people of Ipswich and surrounds.
The budget includes $24 million to develop and deliver a veterans' employment program, which will not only support veterans as they transition into civilian life but champion veterans' employment by raising awareness of the skills and experience veterans have to offer civilian workforces. Too often under the previous government it was about handing out awards to businesses who supported veterans and not enough practical support for veterans on the ground to get into employment. On a similar note, there is $4.7 million for the development of the Operation NAVIGATOR, a smart phone application to better support our ADF personnel as they transition into the civilian workforce, a commitment I was delighted to announce at the Oasis Townsville veterans' hub during the election campaign. One in 10 people who leave the ADF in any given year leave from Townsville, so it's critical that the Oasis be supported, and I'm pleased to see that we are doing so.
There is $46.2 million to expand access to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme to boost defence personnel and veterans homeownership, on which I spoke earlier today. It's worth adding that the government plans to set aside $30 million to support veteran homelessness as part of our investments in social and affordable housing as part of the Housing Australia Future Fund. It is a critical issue, and I commend people and, particularly, organisations like those I saw in South Australia and in Queensland who do great work in helping veterans with homelessness and transitioning to housing after leaving the ADF. Finally, the government has committed to working with defence and veterans' families to design a support strategy involving better posting cycles, housing solutions and transition services. This is absolutely crucial in my electorate, where RAAF Base Amberley is located.
This measure in this bill demonstrates the Albanese Labor government's commitment to providing practical support for current and ex-serving personnel. I thank the minister for his continued commitment to veterans and for the budget measures here, which will make a difference in my electorate. I want to make sure that veterans' families in my electorate and around the country get a better future than they had under the previous coalition government.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (12:01): I rise to speak in support of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022. This is the second bill regarding increasing the support that we, the Commonwealth, provide to veterans that I have had the opportunity to speak on this week. Can I start by acknowledging all the veterans who serve in this place, in both houses, thanking them for their service and making the comment, as I always do in debates on these types of bills, that it is very helpful that people who have served and are veterans are able to contribute in these debates and give those of us who have not served in uniform their very important perspective, not only their own but that of the networks they are very deeply engaged in through the veterans community.
It is poignant that we are debating these matters in a week that culminates in Remembrance Day, on Friday. Of course, 11 November is a commemoration link to the armistice at 11am on 11 November 1918, when hostilities ceased on the Western Front. From there came the Treaty of Versailles and other treaties that ended the First World War, the Great War. There was nothing great about it, but historians hoped the magnitude and devastation of that war would lead to such an ingrained lesson to humanity that we would never have a repeat of it. Tragically, that was not to be, given the Great War is now referred to as the First World War.
This Friday in our electorates we will all take the opportunity to commemorate, at 11am, the moment that has by extension become a commemoration of sacrifice across all conflicts in this nation and in many nations around the world. For some it is their primary remembrance event. In this country, Anzac Day has at least equal, and potentially greater, significance, given how specific it is to the service of Australian and New Zealanders at Gallipoli. Nonetheless, this Friday is certainly one of the very significant commemorations in this nation.
Billy Hughes said at Versailles that he spoke for 60,000 dead Australians. The magnitude of that loss and sacrifice, given the adult male population of our nation at the time, is absolutely spectacular. People come to this country from around the world, and if you take them out of the cities—our regional members would advocate that people see the real Australia when they get out of cities—there would not be a country town in this nation that does not have a commemoration of some type to boys lost in the First World War.
What's so striking and people note is that it's amazing what kind of impact and legacy a war on the other side of the planet left here in continental Australia. That, of course, is the case in the other great nations that engaged in that conflict. I have a suburb called Dernancourt in the north of my electorate, which is named after the Dernancourt village in the north of France, which had a very significant battle in early 1918. It was a battle that was a very significant halting of one of the final German attempts to break through the front before US soldiers arrived in support a few months later in 1918 just towards the culmination of that horrendous war.
We in the coalition, of course, support this bill, which increases the payments to those in total permanent incapacitation who are veterans and who have served our nation. Obviously we want to take every opportunity to do everything that we should do to support those who have served this nation and give them every support in their lives and careers, both during service and after. This is specific to after service. None could be more deserving than those who are in a situation where they're totally and permanently incapacitated and not in a position to earn the income and have the career that they would have absolutely had if they hadn't made such sacrifices in serving our nation. Obviously supporting increased ways to help them more is something that in the coalition we always look to support the government on. We look to support them on these matters and come up with our own constructive proposals where we see opportunity.
As local members of parliament, we're very engaged with our veteran communities in a number of ways, such as on the commemoration side and supporting the services clubs that we have in our electorates. I am also very honoured to have the Jamie Larcombe Centre in my electorate, which is one of the Commonwealth funded facilities that provide a number of veterans services to veterans in my electorate but also much more broadly in Adelaide and South Australia. At times as local members we are contacted, and there are times when veterans do need help to navigate and get the support that they're absolutely entitled to. Sometimes, regretfully, the bureaucracy can be slow and can get some of the treatment of our veterans either incorrect or delayed. One of the very important roles of us as members of parliament is to make sure that we're supporting all the people who we represent that are entitled to government services, but particularly our veterans.
I'd like to acknowledge all veterans who do so much to become leaders within the veteran community and support their fellow veterans, particularly those who are in need of that support. There's nothing in my experience that's more significant in providing veterans support than another veteran, who, of course, can understand exactly some of the challenges and experiences that they are challenged with or suffering from. Our veterans who take those leadership roles and provide that assistance to their fellow veterans really do need to be acknowledged and commended by all of us. In this debate I want to take that opportunity as well.
Other speakers have talked about the royal commission that is currently underway. Of course, we all eagerly await any recommendations from that process that we might have the opportunity to put in place in this parliament. The government at the executive level, depending on the nature of recommendations, will also have the opportunity to respond to those. There is absolute unanimity around the commitment from all of us in this place that any veteran suicide or serving personnel suicide is one too many. We stand ready as an opposition to work with the government on anything that comes out of that process that recommends ways that the government can do anything at all to prevent a single suicide from those communities. I think it's extremely important to take any opportunity from that process.
This increase is welcome, but it does come at a time when the cost of living is obviously growing at a very rapid rate. The people who we're supporting through this measure, this increase, are people who are on a fixed income. Whether they are veterans on the TPI or any other people on support payments—pensioners et cetera—in our society, inflation impacts on them more than anyone. When you're on a fixed income, when you have to very carefully manage the household budget, it is frightening to see prices going up, on average, at 7.3 per cent.
The budget and the Reserve Bank are predicting that the inflation rate will be increasing from that point. And, regrettably, around the world at the moment all the predictions being made about inflation by central banks and by governments are continually being revised up. We hope to see inflation falling, but regrettably the pattern at the moment is that it is increasing. Increases like this have to be seen with the lens of the inflation rate applied to them as well.
At 7.3 per cent, whilst increases to these payments are strongly supported, it is going to be important for this parliament, and this government—at a much more rapid rate than we've been accustomed to in the past—to keep looking at whether or not we're keeping up with those pressures. Hopefully, we'll see those pressures dissipate, and the government has got an opportunity to play a role in that as well and to apply policy measures that can assist with putting downward pressure on inflation. That's the context and the environment that we are in, in debating this bill, but I certainly proudly support it, as do the coalition.
Once again, I thank all the members who have indicated their support. There is a unanimity around it. I particularly thank the veterans who serve in this parliament who have spoken about the importance of this bill and have also spoken about their own particular experience as veterans. This feeds into how they can contribute to supporting and suggesting ways that we can do more to support our veterans. With those comments, I commend the bill to the chamber.
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (12:12): I'm proud to rise and support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022, which directly responds to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It also addresses recommendations of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and it's coming off a lack of action of the previous coalition government. The former Prime Minister raised many hopes amongst veterans, for years promising change, but those hopes were cruelly cut down time and time again. This bill is filling in the gaps and mending the broken trust that ex-service personnel have felt after nine long years of being left behind by the previous government.
We're here to change that and are finally legislating on something that should have been acted on before we reached this crisis point. We've consistently shown up for veterans, even when we were in opposition. We've always done what we can. And we will always staunchly back more support for our veterans. It's not just about patriotism, it's actually about getting things done.
We instigated an inquiry during the previous government to try and get the now opposition to act for veterans. Despite their coming from bipartisan committee, the government still didn't act on those recommendations. Honestly, I feel sorry for those opposite who are passionate about veterans affairs, because we did work together in the last parliament to try and make substantial change. Yet nothing got done because the leadership couldn't deliver. When the Senate committee's findings were introduced to the parliament in the middle of last year they were ignored by the previous government. Calls from veterans groups and members of the veterans community were ignored. Calls from within their own party room were ignored by the previous government. The advice that came through from the committee wasn't even that radical. It suggested just a moderate increase, something that could have easily been instigated. There were reports of understaffing and a backlog of claims, something that could have easily been fixed with legislation. But the previous government were just unable to do the job to address this.
Now Labor is here, finally delivering on the findings and promises of this inquiry. It was Labor, despite being in opposition, that started the Senate inquiry into veterans affairs, and it will be Labor who finally delivers for the veteran community.
We proudly took the policies behind this bill to the election. We know that the previous government were all announcement and no delivery when it came to these things. Labor is here doing the things that matter for those who have served. When those opposite were in office they had the chance to provide better support to veterans. While we welcome their support for the bill now, why did we have to wait so long? That's the question veterans ask.
This legislation will increase both the fortnightly payments and the services available to veterans. We are tackling the staffing issues that have led to hundreds of thousands of claims not even being looked at, because of how understaffed the department was before we came to power. Labor is moving quickly with DVA to make sure it is adequately equipped to help veterans and get through the current backlog. We're doing this through a range of measures. We are investing $233.9 million to hire 500 new staff at DVA to provide more support in getting through claims; committing $24.3 million to provide increased support to veterans who are having their claims processed and to improve future capacity to prepare for when there may be an increase in claims; and committing $15.5 million to support DVA's continued engagement with the royal commission.
We are moving quickly to fulfil our election commitments and we urge the parliament to do the same. The quicker we approve these administrative capabilities, the quicker support will be given to those in the community. The fact that this has taken so long and that these administrative issues have gotten so bad is a real testament to the previous government. When you change the government you change the nation. They had their head in the clouds with no regard to the boots on the ground.
We are tackling the effects of the cost-of-living crisis that most veterans are especially vulnerable to and we are giving them support and security. We're committed to doing this by increasing the TPI payment by an extra $1,000 a year from the beginning of next year. This will mean $38.46 will be added to the fortnightly payment. That is on top of the biannual indexation increases. There will also be an increase to the temporary special rate payment under the VEA.
These are promises that we took to the last election. I am proud to stand before you today and say that Labor is delivering these promises. Some of those opposite should take note of how this is done in case they are ever back in government again. Through this bill the Albanese government provides better support for veterans and their families by improving the claims process, simplifying legislation, giving proper financial compensation and providing more overall support for veterans. This will have a massive effect on those who have served and their families. It will help some 27,000 veterans and their families, which is why we are working hard to get this through. The sooner the support comes the better. I think both sides of the House should agree on that.
This legislation will have overarching effects on all communities in Australia and throughout all of our electorates. It will provide supports and a boost to all veterans in our communities, which will have only a positive impact. In my electorate of McEwen this legislation will help some 1,409 DVA clients and 622 people who receive VEA pension benefits. This support to the members of our community who have served this country with exceptional honour and bravery will have huge positive impacts across our community.
For a wider look, this legislation will affect some 255,000 veterans Australia-wide. The legislation will help over 86,000 dependants who receive benefits from these schemes. No-one will lose out from this legislation. We just need to get it done. This legislation will provide ex-service personnel with stability and support for them to help reintegrate into civilian life. This is our way of doing what we can to help pay them back.
I'm very passionate about getting this legislation through as quickly as possible, as I've seen the need for this system to be fixed. The system has been beyond capacity. In another debate yesterday I reflected on working with veterans in the McEwen community. I was contacted by Len. Len is a veteran in our community. He had been waiting over 1,000 days just to have his claim heard—not even approved; just heard. By any stretch of the imagination that's appalling. That is a result of what we had under the Morrison government. Veterans were left behind. It's appalling. It's not what should be happening. I know there are those on opposite who genuinely care and who know that this is a problem. I don't think any of us sitting in this room today would say that it's fair and reasonable, especially to those who have given so much for our community.
The DVA has had a real problem with the way it has been working with veterans and how it supports them. Due to a lack of funding to the department and being so understaffed, it just could not get through the claims. He's in the room, and he'll probably get a shock that I'm being nice to him, but when I spoke to Minister Keogh, he made sure that Len's claim was not only assessed but approved within 24 hours. That is what happens when you are proactive. Len said to me on the phone: 'The sad part is it was approved using the same information that I had given DVA 1,000 days ago.' Nothing had changed. It was just that he hadn't been given the opportunity to have his claim looked at, but now, not only was it looked at but it was addressed. The importance of that can never be underestimated. For three years this poor fellow had been under the stress of waiting, not knowing if he was going to get support that was owed to him. He is not alone. He is one of many who go through this situation, and he's one of many who have been suffering because of the backlog of work at DVA.
I know that members on both sides want to see that veterans are looked after. We cannot see veterans of today going through the problems that faced Vietnam veterans. We have that lesson to be learned—we know that—and we have to do all we can to fix that. We, as a parliament, make decisions that send young men and women out and sometimes bring them home broken. We have an obligation to do what we can to fix that. It is not a partisan thing. I know the member for Riverina, over there, is passionate about this, and I know he supports the idea that we have—he has Kapooka, so he might have seen the odd soldier come through there daily. He knows what goes on, just as we know what goes on, and we have a job to do. I know that if the parliament works together we can get on with that.
This is a commitment we have to make to veterans. This legislation will bring some of the change that is sorely needed in the veteran community. I know there are many other veterans who are in a desperate situation. We have to do everything we can to work together to get this sorted out as quickly as possible. When you talk to organisations like Save Our Services you see them doing a great deal of work to help veterans who have got out of the armed services transition to civilian life by getting them jobs in construction, because the one thing that comes through, when you talk to a lot of veterans, is they don't feel valued anymore. Giving them the dignity of employment and support and the help they need is vital in giving these guys opportunity.
I've mentioned Save Our Services before, with Jeb in Sunbury, who felt so bad that on Anzac Day he was going to give me back his medal. Nothing turned my stomach more than that. This guy gave everything, came back injured and could not get the support he needed. Fortunately, he didn't go through with it, and I'm grateful he didn't. That's not where our support should end. It's why we should be supporting this bill. We've begun the work, beginning with the hiring process to help get claims through. Let's get this legislated so we can get this job done, because the wait and lack of action have been disappointing for those sitting in parliament—on both sides, as I've said. I know people on that side who are disappointed with what has happened. It's disappointing for us who have a big interest in defence and veterans, but it's even worse for those who have been all but forgotten in the past decade. Together as a parliament, let's do the right thing and get this legislation through for people who have given us so much. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:24): Australia's First World War historian, Charles Bean, was struck by the futility of what was referred to as the Great War. I said in my contribution earlier on the defence home ownership bill that there is nothing great about war. Writing after Pozieres, he said:
… there is only one way out of this war for an infantryman and that is on his back; either sick, wounded or dead. There is no going back to cheering crowds—no marching through the London streets and ovations in Australian ports. They will be put at it to fight and fight and fight again—until, if not in this battle, then in the next each man gets his bullet … They are looking down the long road straight to the end—they can see it plain enough now, and they know that there is no turning.
It is an awful cost that Australia has paid for our freedom. I know, as we all do, that the price of peace is eternal vigilance. We have to be ready. We have to be prepared. Sometimes we have to do what it takes. I am proud to come from an electorate and a city which have a proud military history like so many country communities, so many communities right across this nation, which has that long line of khaki back to Gallipoli in 1915 and even beyond. Indeed, as the member for McEwen just noted, Wagga Wagga is the home of the soldier. Blamey Barracks, in honour of Sir Thomas Blamey, who was born at Lake Albert, served our nation very well. Indeed, every recruit does their 13 weeks of basic training to join the Australian Army at the Army Recruit Training Centre at Wagga Wagga.
We have an Air Force base, originally the Allonville property. The Royal Australian Air Force has had a presence in our city since 1930. Forest Hill airbase was established in 1940 at the height, perhaps, of the Second World War, a global conflict in which Australia was very much under threat. More bombs were dropped on northern Australia than were indeed dropped at Pearl Harbor, and that's a fact perhaps not taught enough in our schools these days.
Our Navy also does an amazing and remarkable job and we all know that, and it too has a presence in Wagga Wagga through the Air Force base at Forest Hill. About 70 or 80 personnel from the Navy are stationed at Wagga Wagga, so it is the only regional inland centre with all three arms of the Defence Force. In our city we are very proud of that fact and may that long continue. I know how hard I fought, as the editor of the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser back in 1997 when it appeared as though RAAF was to going be taken away from our city. I know the member for Riverina at the time, Noel Hicks, joined the save our base committee—in fact, he helped form it—and that was followed by Kay Hull, who succeeded him in 1998. We managed to save our base. When I was the assistant minister for defence in 2016 and we were doing the white paper into Defence at the time, we managed to ensure that Wagga Wagga had two bases. Military bases were enhanced for the future, so we provided that necessary infrastructure, that necessary funding that is going to secure the future of our bases now and into the future forever more.
This bill is important. It delivers a one-off increase of $1,000 per year, $38.46 per fortnight, to veterans who receive the totally and permanently incapacitated, TPI, payment commencing 1 January 2023. I gave that bit of history of Charles Bean writing after Pozieres of Wagga Wagga's involvement in the military because it's important to remember always, with Armistice Day, Remembrance Day just two days away now, we need to look after our people who proudly put on the uniform, not just when they're wearing the uniform, not just when they are marching on 25 April or November 11, but each and every day after the service, just as importantly as when they are in service.
This bill must pass before the end of 2022 to take effect from 1 January, New Year's Day, next year. I appreciate that the now government, in opposition, made an election commitment to deliver a one-off $1,000 annual increase to recipients of the TPI payment. Approximately 27,000 veterans receive TPI payments. I'm proud to say that in my electorate we have 3,800 veterans, of whom 1,426 reside in Wagga Wagga. The increased payment has been provided for in the recent federal budget that the member for Rankin delivered for 2022-23. The TPI payment is formally called the special rate of disability compensation payment, and it is offered when a veteran's injuries from war or defence service are assessed under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act as preventing them from having a normal work life. This is so important because often those people who have served in the military find it difficult to adjust to civilian life, to normal work life, when their military careers have finished. And, just as they placed their lives on the line for us in the service of our nation, we—and especially we here in the parliament—should look after them when that service is done.
The TPI payment is paid for life unless circumstances change—for example, if the recipient returns to work. It is not taxable and nor should it be, and it is not included in means-testing for other income support payments. I do hope—and I mean this earnestly and not politically—that the payment is not absorbed by other cost-of-living pressures brought about by increases in electricity and power prices. I hope that that money does give veterans the relief that they've sought, that they need and that they deserve. I appreciate that there are cost-of-living pressures. And those cost-of-living pressures are very much in the minds of any family doing a budget, any business continuing to open its doors and serve customers, and, indeed, any veteran who finds it difficult—as many of them do—to make ends meet from one pay cheque to the next. It's very, very important that we look after our veterans.
We as parliamentarians on all sides of the chamber have seen all too often in recent times awful stories—horrible media articles—about veterans sleeping rough, about veterans couch surfing, and about veterans living in cars and under bridges. This is not good enough. It's not good in 2022. It wasn't ever good enough. While I disagree with much of what the member for McEwen said in his contribution about the level of support provided under the former coalition government—of which I was for a long time the Deputy Prime Minister—the member did comment on the need to provide a roof over the heads of our veterans. And I'm pleased that the previous bill, the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022, passed through this chamber earlier today.
I'm also pleased that the government has brought forward this TPI increase. I appreciate that TPI payments are indexed to male total average weekly earnings and TPI recipients also receive the veteran gold card, as they should. The coalition support the bill. We said at the outset when we returned to opposition that we would support good legislation and that we would support reasonable policy. And, whilst good legislation and policy often comes at a bottom-line expense, this expense is very much warranted, given the fact we are talking about our veterans, and given the fact we are supporting veterans who have supported us. I know how important this is.
As I did in my previous contribution, and as the previous speaker, the member for McEwan, did in his contribution, I would like to mention the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This legislation and that for the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme help to give veterans hope. We need to ensure that we give veterans a roof over their heads and the support that they need—whether that's TPI or other payments—as well as, obviously, mental health support and care and love. We need to wrap our arms around them, as so many organisations do—organisations such as Soldier On and the Integrated Service People's Association of Australia et cetera.
I want to note that the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is having a public hearing in Wagga Wagga. It will be the eighth public hearing conducted by the royal commission and follows a recent hearing in Darwin. The venue will be the Mercure hotel, 1 Morgan Street, Wagga Wagga. The hearings are set down to be held between 28 November and 2 December. I urge any veteran who wants to be part of that to go onto the net, to contact the DVA, to see if and how they can take part in that. I appreciate that the royal commission website will be live streaming those particular hearings in Wagga Wagga.
The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was established on 8 July 2021 by the coalition government to conduct an inquiry into the over-representation of serving and ex-serving defence members in deaths by suicide in Australia. There are three royal commissioners heading the inquiry: Nick Kaldas APM, who is the chair, the Hon. James Douglas KC and Dr Peggy Brown AO. I would encourage anyone who has a story to tell to reach out to the royal commission. The commission has so far heard tragic stories, and I would urge anyone distressed by material or images at the Wagga Wagga hearing to seek support or to speak to a member of the inquiry's counselling team. This is so, so important.
We heed the words from Charles Bean, who established the Australian War Memorial after his experience at Pozieres. I appreciate the manner in which the government has brought this particular veterans support to the parliament and the good intentions behind it, and that is why we are supporting it. I'll say again: I do hope that the $1,000 one-off increase will not be eaten up by increased cost-of-living pressures, which, let's face it, there are in the community at the moment. I understand how important this is. I recommend it to the House, and I thank the government for bringing it forward.
While I'm on my feet, I also want to wish the member for Burt, the 46th Minister for Veterans' Affairs, all the best in his role. It's an important role. It is one of the most vital and integral roles in the parliament. It should always be in cabinet.
Mr Khalil: Yes, I agree.
Mr McCORMACK: I'm glad I've got the support of the member for Wills there, because the role is too important not to be in cabinet. The person who is filling this role needs to be around the big decision table when the important decisions are being taken—not for a party's sake but for our veterans' sake. As I say, I wish him well in the role and I offer him every bit of support that I can give, having been a minister for veterans' affairs. I commend this particular bill to the House.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (12:39): I thank the member for Riverina for his contribution. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that veterans who are impacted severely by their experience in the Australian Defence Force are supported fairly. Our defence personnel, veterans and their families deserve our respect, and they deserve to be well looked after. As our Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, Mr Keogh, noted in his contribution on this bill—and I note he's sitting just behind me—looking after our veteran community 'is an important task and responsibility of government—a solemn commitment.' As with so many things, it has taken a Labor government to honour this commitment and take the necessary steps to ensure a better future for veterans and their families.
Before the 2019 election, the member for Cook, as Prime Minister, raised expectations that he would increase the rate of the disability compensation payment special rate, also known as the TPI payment, by committing to a review of the pension. He even told the TPI Federation that it had a compelling case. However, after the election, no increase was recommended by that review.
In response to this typical 'all announcement, no delivery' behaviour of the previous government, Labor senators took action to get the job done, initiating an inquiry through the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. That committee's report was tabled on 1 July 2021, recommending an increase to the TPI payment and suggesting it should be increased by a modest amount. Disappointingly—but not, perhaps, unsurprisingly—the Morrison government ignored this bipartisan recommendation and in fact did nothing in response to the inquiry for its entire term over 2019 to 2022.
This bill is Labor's response to that inquiry and the specific recommendation about increasing the rate of TPI. It implements the Albanese government's 2022 pre-election commitment to provide a $1,000 per annum increase to the TPI from 1 January 2023. This bill shows that the government is listening to the needs of veterans and their families. Specifically, this measure will (1) provide the increase of $1,000 to the annual rate of TPI under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, (2) increase the temporary special rate payment under the VEA and the special rate disability pension under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and (3) ensure that TPI veterans and their families are provided greater financial support, recognising the impact of their ADF service.
Importantly, this bill also delivers on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to deliver responsible cost-of-living relief. The increase to the TPI payment means it will be comparable with the national minimum wage and greater than the after-tax national minimum wage that a wage earner would receive. This initiative recognises the importance of supporting veterans who have been severely impacted by their experiences in the Australian Defence Force.
I am proud to be part of a government that honours and supports our veterans and serving defence personnel. The recent passage of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment (Incapacity Payments) Bill 2022, which supports veterans who are in an approved rehabilitation program and undertaking full-time study to continue to receive incapacity payments at 100 per cent of their normal weekly earnings for an additional year, is just one example of this. Likewise, the introduction during the last sitting week of the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022 will boost homeownership for defence members and veterans by expanding the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme eligibility criteria.
I must also acknowledge the Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants Program, which provides funding for projects and activities that commemorate the service and sacrifice of Australia's military personnel in wars, conflicts and peacetime operations. The most recent round of the STS program provided funding for two very worthwhile projects in my electorate, giving funding to the Launceston branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association to install memorial bench seats at Lake Sorell and to the Westbury RSL to construct a panorama of wall-mounted commemorative steel silhouettes. I will note here that applications are currently open for an upcoming round of the Saluting Their Service program, and I would encourage ex-service organisations and councils within the electorate of Lyons to consider applying.
We all want our service personnel, veterans and veterans' families to know that Australia is proud of them and that our country will always be there for them.
One way we are doing this is by implementing the government's response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide Interim Report. In doing so, the government will engage 500 new frontline staff at the Department of Veterans' Affairs to eliminate the backlog of compensation claims, develop a pathway for simplification and harmonisation of veterans' legislation, invest in modernising IT systems of the DVA, provide increased support to veterans who are having their claims processed and commenced $15.5 million to support DVA's continued and timely engagement with the royal commission. Under this Albanese Labor government, veterans and veterans' families are getting the support that they not only need but deserve, and this bill is one such practical measure that does just that.
Just before I commend this bill to the House, I'd like to remind the House that in two days we commemorate the service of veterans and those who served in World War I with Remembrance Day. Anybody who wishes to attend the services in Lyons or Tasmania is encouraged to get onto rsltas.org.au. All the services and the various start times for the day are listed there. We mark the day at 11 am, but a lot of services start before then. It's a very important day in the calendar: Remembrance Day on the 11th of the 11th. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro—Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) (11:46): Of the many responsibilities that come with being a representative in this place, I'm particularly proud to represent the interests of members of the Australian Defence Force, both active and retired. As the member for Eden-Monaro, I've had the privilege of representing a significant number of people from the defence community. And, I am particularly proud of my late grandfather's service in the Navy.
Those that are called to serve our nation deserve our deepest gratitude and respect, and I'm pleased to represent them here in parliament. As we approach Remembrance Day this week, we prepare to once again honour those that have served and made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We will pause and remember the cost paid by the many that died in the service of our country—them and their families. Our community knows that we must always support our defence forces and their families and the extended communities around them.
Today I am pleased to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022, an important amendment, particularly for those who have served and suffered either physical or mental health consequences as a result of their service. As a government we recognise that these injuries have consequences to their lives outside of the Defence Force. Those who have suffered disability because of injuries while serving in the defence forces our entitled to a higher rate of pension to reflect the person's inability to work due to these injuries.
This amendment seeks to provide a modest recognition of those that wear the scars of their service. It's honouring an election commitment made by Labor to permanently increase the totally and permanently incapacitated payment for eligible disabled veterans. The commitment was made by Labor after the previous government failed to act on the recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The committee, at Labor's insistence, conducted an inquiry during the last parliament into the totally and permanently incapacitated payment, and recommendation No. 1 was for a modest increase to that payment. This amendment honours Labor's commitment to act on the recommendation and will, from 1 January 2023, make an annual increase of a thousand dollars to the TPI payment. This increase will go some way to address the decline in the relative value of the payment over time, and it will help ensure that our TPI veterans and their families are provided greater financial support, recognising the impacts of their ADF service.
This is not the only measure that the Albanese government is taking to improve the welfare of veterans and their families. We've already moved to employ additional staff at the Department of Veterans' Affairs to address the disgraceful backlog of claims which was allowed to develop under the previous government. In addition, the departmental staffing cap, which has prevented the DVA from increasing the number of well-trained and permanent staff, will be abolished. I've been shocked and saddened by stories of veterans in my electorate who have had their claims delayed, who have had to make multiple claims, who have had to tell their stories multiple times, and the suffering that has caused them and their families whilst they wait for their claim to be dealt with. It's bewildering that we can hear those stories from people who have served our nation, whilst they wait for answers—and that might continue for some time. Our government's commitment to improve claim-processing times is of vital importance in showing our respect and commitment to those who've served.
The Albanese government has also committed to opening a network of veterans hubs across Australia, located in areas with significant defence and veteran communities, and I am beyond proud that Queanbeyan, in my electorate, will host one of the veterans wellbeing hubs. It has one of the largest communities of both serving and retired members of the Australian defence forces.
I've seen the anticipation of the veterans community for these hubs. I've held round tables, and I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for coming along to one of those round tables in Queanbeyan and speaking to both contemporary veterans and those who have served in conflicts well past. The fact that we have a veterans' affairs minister who's prepared to talk to people on the ground about what will work and what we know won't work in our community is refreshing. These wellbeing hubs will be a one-stop shop for health and mental health services, for wellbeing support, for advocacy services, for employment and housing services, and for the all-important social connections that this initiative promises.
I've heard, time and time again, from veterans in my community, that sometimes the social connections are the things that matter most, and I want to give a shout-out to the Veterans Motorcycle Club, which has its clubhouse in Queanbeyan. It's a fantastic organisation that does just that—provides social connection to former serving personnel and their families. It's something that doesn't mean that they have to talk about what's happened; it's somewhere where they can connect over the issues they were having with DVA; it's somewhere where people can come together just for a laugh and know that they've got a shared history and connection.
Other initiatives that are being developed by the Albanese Labor government for the veterans community are housing and employment programs and increasing levels of support for defence families. We know that defence families play a crucial role in getting our veterans integrated back into communities, but they also play a significant role for serving members of the Defence Force. And, so often, those families have to be home alone, without their loved one, as they serve in the Defence Force, whether here or abroad.
We are committed to continuing to meet the challenges being investigated by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This measure demonstrates that the government is listening to the needs of veterans and their families.
I commend the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022 to the House. Those who serve and permanently suffer from injuries resulting from their service deserve our deepest respect and continuing gratitude and the modest recognition that this measure provides.
Mr KEOGH (Burt—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (12:52): The Australian community has a clear expectation that defence personnel, veterans and families are well looked after. This is an important task and responsibility of government—a solemn commitment.
In summing up the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022, I'd like to thank the opposition and the others in this House for their support of it. I would like, in particular, to note the great work of the member for Blair, as the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel, in developing this commitment from Labor—in supporting the increase of the TPI payment for our veterans. The member for Blair also noted the great work that we're doing in delivering on veterans hubs—in particular, one in his electorate, in Ipswich, where the previous government committed in 2016 to deliver such a hub which was never ever delivered. Of course, in his electorate, he has a great number of serving personnel and veterans, because of the location there of the Amberley air base, which I was very happy to be able to visit just a few weeks ago.
I'd also like to thank the member for Sturt, the member for McEwen, the member for Riverina, the member for Lyons and the member for Eden-Monaro for their contributions in this debate and, in particular, for recognising their local service personnel and veterans communities and for the close work that they have done with their veterans communities, in engaging with them and understanding the special need for service and support that our veterans have. Ensuring that they get that support is what this bill does, in delivering a $1,000 increase to the rate of the TPI pension.
In the interests of time, I will make just a few brief remarks. This increase comes from an election commitment by Labor at the last election, but it comes on the back of a commitment from the previous government, in the lead-up to the 2019 election, to look at the rate of payment in support of our TPI veterans, our totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. In their commitment to review, the previous government did nothing. A Senate inquiry then ensued during the last parliamentary term. That Senate inquiry, on a bipartisan basis, recommended that the rate of payment for our TPI veterans be increased. But, again, the previous government did nothing. It fell upon Labor to make a commitment at the last election to make that $1,000 a year increase to TPI payments. Today, with this bill, we are delivering on that commitment.
That $1,000 a year increase to the special rate of disability pension, an increase of $38.46 per fortnight, will ensure veterans and their families are better supported financially, which does indeed help keep up with the cost-of-living pressures that they are experiencing. It forms part of our recent budget, which is delivering on our commitment of responsible cost-of-living relief. The increase to the TPI payment means that it will now be comparable with the national minimum wage and, crucially, greater than the after-tax national minimum wage that a wage earner would ordinarily receive. This initiative recognises the importance of supporting veterans who have been severely impacted from their experience in the Australian Defence Force. The bill will achieve that by amending the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. It will support these pensioners.
We are committed to implementing this and other practical support measures to better support our defence serving personnel, veterans and families. Of course, it is crucial that this bill pass the House this year to ensure these increases and payments can flow from 1 January 2023. I look forward to the opposition's and other members' support in the Senate to ensure that that can occur. We on this side are committed to delivering a better future for defence personnel, veterans and families. This bill is part of how we are delivering on that in government. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 16:00
Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (16:01): The Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022 contains important amendments to the Atomic Energy Act 1953. These amendments put in place a number of measures important for securing the rehabilitation and eventual closure of the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory. This is a goal shared by government, the mine's operator and its traditional owners. Amendments will ensure that Energy Resources Australia, Ranger's long-standing operator, remain authorised to conduct approved rehabilitation and monitoring activities at Ranger for as long as is needed and for ERA to demonstrate it has achieved the high standards of environmental rehabilitation that have long applied to the site. I thank the member for Aston for his speech yesterday and I'm very glad that the bill enjoys bipartisan support. I was happy to hear the member talk about the allowances for a progressive closeout, which is something that makes me and all involved very proud.
The authority created under this legislation allows for sections of the Ranger mine to be progressively returned to traditional owners as they are rehabilitated. I know all those in the chamber recognise Ranger's rehabilitation as a priority and look forward to seeing Ranger becoming a world-class example of mine rehabilitation. I want to note I visited the site recently and have seen the work that is currently being undertaken. I thank all those involved in that very hard work under quite trying conditions near Jabiluka in the Northern Territory.
In concluding, I want to thank ERA, the Northern Land Council and the Mirarr people for the close engagement on this bill. I commend this bill to the chamber and to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms WELLS (Lilley—Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport) (16:04): In my first speech to parliament, I made a commitment to be a good ancestor and to leave the world a better place for future generations. Three years and five months later, I am so proud to be out of a government putting those values to action. I am proud to be part of a government that is easing our cost of living with responsible spending while delivering community benefits in a wide range of portfolios.
This is the first Labor budget in almost a decade. This is a budget that delivers on the promises that we took to the election.
When I think about how our budget ushered in a new era for Australians, I think back to the conversations I had while doorknocking in my electorate of Lilley, pre election. It was clear to me, whilst visiting the residential aged-care facilities, whilst knocking on doors and whilst speaking to voters at pre poll, that a decade of denial had left aged care in real crisis. As constituent after constituent passionately shared their shocking stories of neglect, I grew increasingly appalled. At the time, I had no idea that I would even be a minister, let alone, now, the Minister for Aged Care. So I listened, and the list was long and confronting. Those conversations will always stay with me. I stand here now, proud that this budget improves the quality of aged care and takes steps to address the concerns of some of the people that I spoke with at those booths.
I also stand here knowing that this is only the beginning and that reforming this sector will take time—a lot of time. I want to move aged care from a culture of compliance to a culture of excellence, and this budget is a positive step towards that goal.
This budget represents meaningful progression in restoring dignity to older Australians in care. It includes $3.9 billion in funding and responds to 23 of the aged-care royal commission's recommendations. It increases care minutes for residents, starting with 200 from 1 October next year, and 215 care minutes from 1 October 2024, while, from 1 July next year, all aged-care homes must have a registered nurse on site 24/7. These measures combined received $2.5 billion in funding from the budget.
There is $23.1 million spent on progressing in-home aged-care reforms, including additional consultation, a large-scale trial of a new assessment tool, and the establishment of a service-list advisory body. There's $26.1 million that will fund individual homes to provide better support to older First Nations people, those from diverse communities and those living in regional areas. The Strengthening Regional Stewardship of Aged Care measure, funded at $68.5 million, will expand the department's local presence, to help improve regional aged-care services, including in eight new regional locations, while $312.6 million will be provided to modernise aged-care ICT, to enable reform and reduce administrative burden.
One of our greatest priorities in aged care is supporting staff, after nine years of neglect left workers underpaid and undervalued. In August, the Albanese government made a submission to the Fair Work Commission for a much-needed pay rise for our valued aged-care workers. Last week the commission made an interim decision for a 15 per cent increase, with further considerations to be had. This is another positive step forward in reforming aged care, because, if we don't start paying workers properly, we will not be able to attract and retain enough staff to care for our loved ones as our population ages. This decision also helps us to close the gender pay gap. More than 85 per cent of aged-care workers are female and, until now, they could've earned more by stocking shelves in supermarkets.
Our commitment to boosting the workforce does not end with aged care. Childcare costs have soared 41 per cent in the past eight years. We will cut the cost of early childhood education for more than 1.2 million families in Australia. The impact will be particularly felt in my electorate of Lilley—not just at my house—where 8,900 families will have access to cheaper child care, thanks to this commitment. Ninety-six per cent of families with children in early childhood education and care will benefit from the new subsidies, and no Australian family will be worse off. This is among several initiatives that will help to take cost-of-living pressures off young families on the north side of Brisbane.
It is estimated that participation rates for women in the paid workforce remain almost 10 percentage points below those of men. This must change. I am a working mum with three young kids, but I am one of the fortunate ones with an amazingly supportive husband and a supportive network of family and friends who are able to support us as I juggle this work. Not everyone is this fortunate. Too often, young parents and families are faced with the pressures of a choice between working to put food on the table or spending time with their newborn baby. This is why I am proud that the Albanese government is increasing Australia's paid parental leave scheme to six months. The six months of leave will also become more flexible, so the leave can be shared more equitably between both parents, while a single parent can claim all of it.
Having a child shouldn't be an economic barrier for families, and I know mothers and fathers in Lilley are relieved to have greater choice about how they balance work and family whilst giving their children the best start in life—a life we are helping to protect through measures to reduce the cost of medicines. For the first time in its 75-year history, the maximum cost of general scripts under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will fall. Getting sick or needing medical treatment should not be a burden on the shoulders of Australians. People should be able to seek treatment and afford medication. We are taking action to make medicines cheaper so people can afford them when they need them. The maximum co-payment of $42.50 will drop to $30 from 1 January 2023. This is yet another example of how the Albanese government is investing in people, and it is investing in the environment's future. It is this government that enshrined in law an emissions reduction target of 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. Earlier this month, I visited a thriving medical hub, Sanofi, in my electorate of Lilley and helped unveil its commitment to renewable energy through 1,500 solar panels. Sanofi gets it, and it is planning an expansion to 3,000 solar panels. The project is expected to generate two gigawatt hours of clean electricity annually.
In my electorate, I have seen firsthand the devastating impacts of climate change, in the February floods that swept through the north side with little regard for treasured items and household structures. Dream homes were lost, memories floated away, families were left shattered but, as always in Lilley, the community rallied. These extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and isn't it a nice change to have a government that recognises climate change's impact?
Finally, as the Minister for Sport, I am thrilled that we are committing to boosting inclusive pathways as we prepare for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games. Last month in New Zealand I helped launch the FIFA women's World Cup draw ahead of next year's tournament. It is the biggest women's sporting event in the world. This government has committed $44.8 million to co-host the World Cup because this festival will encourage more girls and more women to participate, volunteer and work in sport. This budget is also providing better access to sport for First Nations communities and people living with a disability, through funding and expansion of the successful Sport4All program, which will train an additional 80 inclusion coaches. We want to make sport accessible for all Australians no matter their age and no matter their background.
This budget is about delivering cost-of-living relief and genuine reform to help make medicines cheaper, to increase paid parental leave, to reduce child education costs, to reduce our impact on the environment and to encourage women and girls to enjoy sport in a safe environment at last.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (16:12): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 and cognate bills and note that the opposition supports the passage of these bills. It has been a bipartisan approach for many decades to offer support to these bills. I would note, however, that supporting the bills doesn't mean that we support all the measures contained within them.
The context for the budget and this bill is at a macro level a very strong economy, a fundamentally resilient one. In fact, it's hard to see a country in the world whose economy has performed as well as Australia's has over recent months and years. Just two years ago we were staring down the prospect of permanent business closures, tens of thousands of deaths and an unemployment rate of 15 per cent. We know that a million businesses and four million jobs were saved during the course of the work that was done through the pandemic. Today we have more businesses than we had, strong terms of trade, record commodity prices, economic growth of over three per cent, and almost four per cent, in the last financial year and record low unemployment. That's a remarkable position to be in, in the circumstances.
We accept that not every decision made during COVID was perfect. They had to be made with a sense of urgency and in the face of great challenges, but the economic recovery we are seeing right now is a testament to the economic management through COVID. The Reserve Bank governor has made the point, as he sits and talks to other central bank governors around the world, such as when he was in Wyoming recently, that there was no other governor that felt they were in a stronger position than Australia's.
We also had a rapidly improving budget position. It is enormously important to understand that. We saw a $103 billion turnaround in the budget back in March, and from March there was a $43.3 billion improvement through to the end of the financial year. That was in the matter of just a few months. To put this in perspective, it's a remarkable outcome, because last financial year, from the moment that Victoria and New South Wales—the two biggest states—opened up back in October, from the beginning of November through to the end of June, the budget was actually in a cumulative surplus. That is an absolutely remarkable situation to have been in, to have a surplus running as soon as the pandemic—or the lockdowns, at least—came to an end. We were still facing the back end of the pandemic.
This was the snapback which was absolutely central to the previous government's strategy. We wanted to make sure there was a snapback, and there sure was—there's no doubt about that—with a remarkable turnaround in the budget. That trajectory continued in last week's budget, in the updated forecast for 2022-23. But the truth is that people aren't feeling that in their everyday lives. Across the board, there's no doubt about that. The pressures of inflation on household budgets are eating away at these national gains. That's very clear.
When I get around my electorate and around Australia I see some of those challenges people are facing, both on the household side with inflationary pressures and on the business side, particularly, with labour shortages. So it is right and proper that the top of the list right now has to be about dealing with those shorter-term inflationary pressures, and that needs a clear and comprehensive plan. A sound budget needs to be at the core of that plan, but it does need a clear and comprehensive plan.
We absolutely accept that no government can control the context within which their budget is brought down. Their plan has to recognise the context that it faces and those challenges, and we felt this during the course of the pandemic. Those challenges are what they are. You can't change them, but you can change how you respond to them. That's why we felt that the budget was an opportunity for the Treasurer to start outlining a plan to deal with the challenges in the economy that I've just talked about.
The test for the federal budget was simple: first of all, deliver that clear and comprehensive plan to consolidate the strengths of the economic and budget position that Labor inherited. Second, put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates and deal with those short-term supply pressures that businesses are feeling. In the longer term, make sure that we're set up for growth, for strong productivity and participation in the economy beyond the next couple of years. Finally, deliver on election commitments. This really matters. They were very strong election commitments made in the lead-up to, and in, May, and it's right and proper that we hold the government to account on meeting those election commitments.
The government had the opportunity to deliver a budget that met those tests, the shorter-term tests on dealing with those cost-of-living pressures and labour shortages and the longer-term tests to empower aspiration in enterprise, reasserting the role of productivity and lower taxes in driving strong economic growth. We said, and we'll continue to say, that we will back in any Labor policies and initiatives that are consistent with those tests that I've just laid out on the economic side. There's no doubt about that. There are a number of measures in the budget that we will back in because we think they are consistent with those tests, but, overall, there's no question that this budget was a missed opportunity.
I think the real question all Australians could reasonably ask is: why did we have a budget? It's ultimately a traditional high-spending, high-taxing budget. What we needed was a budget that recognised the importance of those issues that I raised, and that had, at the heart of it, a strategy that would deal with those shorter-term pressures that I'm talking about—in particular, a fiscal strategy that was going to take pressure off interest rates and inflation.
Economists will tell you that the most important thing you can do when you have an inflationary and higher-interest-rate environment is make sure that you have a balanced budget, that you've moved to a balanced budget, and that you have a fiscal strategy that's tightening, not loosening. In fact, what we saw in this budget was the exact opposite.
The budget deficit, as I said a moment ago, was all accrued in the first four months of the last financial year. That $31 billion was all in those first four months when we were still in lockdowns. The whole lot. There was an opportunity to take that and strengthen it. In fact, a number of economists said that this could be a pathway; with the right strategy, Labor could be moving us back into budget balance, if not this financial year then certainly next. But no. In fact what they did was expand the budget deficit out to over $50 billion over the next couple of years. It's very unusual for a Treasurer to come into the role and instead of saying, 'I'm going to improve the budget,' say, 'No, I'm going to make it worse.' That is what he did—he said, 'I'm going to make it worse.' That is going to have exactly the opposite effect of what we need on interest rates and inflation.
A number of economists—some of whom are not on our side of politics—have made the point that this is a fiscal strategy that is all wrong for the circumstances. Stephen Koukoulas, economic adviser to Julia Gillard—certainly not on our side of politics—said, 'This is a budget that leaves the Reserve Bank carrying the can on interest rates and inflation.' What does that mean? It means the Reserve Bank is going to have to keep raising interest rates, because the government is not doing its piece. That's the situation we have.
If you have a mortgage—and the average new mortgage we see in New South Wales now is upwards of $750,000—you are going to feel real pain from those rising interest rates. The market now expects the cash rate to go over four per cent and that leaves mortgages of six or seven per cent. That is where we're going. That is what the market is expecting right now. There is nothing in this budget that is taking that pressure off, and that is a huge missed opportunity.
The Treasurer doesn't like admitting this, but when compared with the March budget there is an extra $115 billion of spending. If you take the four years of the March budget and take the first four years of this budget and compare the two totals, there is $115 billion of extra spending. Labor does not like to admit it is a big-spending government, but it is—$115 billion. They like to say that they're banking the savings. There was an extra $145 billion on the revenue side and they're spending the vast majority of that. That is exactly what we don't need. Australians will pay the price with higher inflation and higher interest rates.
The budget had buried within it a lot more than that in terms of the pain it is imposing on Australians. There is a 56 per cent increase in electricity prices. Labor likes to give lots of excuses for this, but it promised a $275 reduction and now in its own budget there is a 56 per cent increase in electricity prices and a 44 per cent increase in gas prices. This isn't going to hit just households—and it will hit households very hard. It's also going to hit our energy intensive businesses. Businesses have worked hard over recent years—and I have worked with them closely—to keep in this country our aluminium smelters in places like Portland and Tomago and our alumina refineries in Gladstone and in the south-west of Western Australia. They are absolutely sensitive to those prices. If those prices go the wrong way, as Labor is predicting, the prospects for those businesses are very poor.
The budget also had embedded within it rising inflation—inflation rising to nearly eight per cent; rising unemployment—over 100,000 jobs will be lost; slowing economic growth; and, tragically for Australians—and this was a very clear election promise from Labor—no improvement in real wages in this term of government. So after all that talk during the election campaign about real wages going to improve, their own budget says that there will be no improvement in real wages in this term of government.
They have put up the white flag; they've given up. The Treasurer comes in and in that grim tone he puts on—it's doom and gloom—he tells Australians it is all terrible and he has no plan. That's not what they expect from the Treasurer. They expect the Treasurer to recognise the circumstances—the great strengths and the challenges of the circumstances that I laid out—and lay out a clear plan, but that is, sadly, not what we saw in the budget.
Steven Hamilton from the ANU's Tax and Transfer Policy Institute said that this budget delivers 'the weakest economic and fiscal strategy of any government since the Charter of Budget Honesty was established, and the exact opposite of the approach of a responsible economic manager'. Steven Hamilton from the ANU, which is just down the road here, is a highly respected economist. He also notes that the government is 'actively driving the budget deeper into structural deficit'.
The Treasurer acts as though deficits are something he can't control—they have nothing to do with him. It's true. The Labor Party demands of treasurers big spending—$115 billion. There's a long queue of ministers out there asking for more money. Stakeholders—there are a lot of people to pay off after that election. It's the $115 billion in the budget, as Steven Hamilton notes, that's actively driving the budget deeper into deficit. By failing to adopt a responsible fiscal policy, we will see higher interest rates and higher inflation than would have otherwise been the case.
On top of that, in the very budget week where they were talking about the challenges Australians are facing, they brought forward toxic industrial relations legislation that's going to take us back to the strikes and job losses of the seventies and eighties. I lived through those. I saw them. I saw the devastation that happened in industries. Small businesses were hit. Farmers were hit. Shearing sheds were burnt down not far from here, including in my electorate, back in those days. That kind of toxic industrial relations with multi-enterprise bargaining brought through in the very week of the budget is a hallmark of how badly this government is misjudging what Australia needs right now in terms of sound economic policy.
But there's another placeholder in this budget, we know. There's a big gap sitting there, waiting to be filled, and the Treasurer is looking for any opportunity to do this, and that's a gap for more taxes. There's no Labor Treasurer that didn't want to tax more. We know that the current Treasurer was an adviser to the previous Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan. He wanted to tax more. There's no doubt about that. Every Labor Treasurer that can tax more is a hero, and this one wants to do the same.
What the Treasurer wants to do is to get rid of the stage 3 tax cuts. These are tax cuts that are going to ensure that the vast majority of Australians are in a position where they know they can keep 70 cents in the dollar, or more if they work more. It's a simple rule of thumb. If you know you're going to get 70 cents in the dollar, you're going to put in, you're going to take risks, you're going to work hard, you're going to have a crack, and that's exactly what we want to see. We will take that fight to the Labor Party as they continue to fly these kites about more taxes, whether it's superannuation or this—or all sorts of other areas where they're talking now. There's nothing Labor doesn't want to tax. We are the party of lower taxes, and we will remain that way.
So this is a budget that was a missed opportunity. We hope the Labor Party will see the error of its ways. And we will back the sensible measures that were included within the budget.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell—Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention and Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health) (16:27): I am pleased to speak on the three appropriation bills relating to our first budget—Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023. Our budget delivers on our election commitments and begins the process of repairing the near-decade of neglect under the previous government. Since the election we've gotten straight to work, delivering on our commitments across Australia and in my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales.
Looking back to when I was first elected in 2016 and to all the budgets handed down since under the former government, communities like mine, on the northern end of the Central Coast of New South Wales, were consistently overlooked. In May, Australians voted for change and elected an Albanese Labor government. I'm proud to be part of this government, working with Minister Butler, with responsibility for mental health and suicide prevention, and rural and regional health. I'm determined, in these roles, to work with others to try to improve the health and wellbeing of all Australians, wherever they grow up, wherever they live and wherever they age.
I'm also finally relieved to be able to deliver much needed support for my community on the Central Coast. The northern end of the Central Coast is one of the fastest growing regions in New South Wales, with a population set to grow by another 75,000 people by 2036. But, under the previous government, this growth was not matched by investment, not matched by investment in transport infrastructure, investment in health care or investment in local jobs.
As a pharmacist who worked our local hospital at Wyong for almost 10 years, I understand, like so many people do, the importance of quality and affordable health care close to home. I also know that in Australia today the further you live outside of a big city, the worse your health care is likely to be. I want to help change that. I want to make sure that every Australian, no matter where they live or where they grow up, has access to the health care they need. In the lead up to the 2022 election, our government made several key commitments to improve health care right across Australia. One of those was addressing the GP crisis that's impacting rural and regional communities and people from the outer metros, including my own electorate on the Central Coast of New South Wales.
During the election, we committed to recognise affected regions around Australia as distribution priority areas so local practices could recruit GPs from a wider pool of doctors. Locally, we committed to recognising the entire Central Coast as a DPA given the acute shortages. Less than three months into government, the member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid, an emergency doctor; the member for Shortland; and I visited a local GP practice in East Gosford to confirm that the entire Central Coast is now a distribution priority area. This change will help take the pressure off local GPs in health, primary health care and our emergency departments, but it's only part of the solution.
Another key commitment was our plan for 50 Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia, including two on the Central Coast. In the government's first budget, funding to build two of these urgent care clinics on the coast was confirmed. These clinics will help take the pressure off hospital emergency departments by giving people another option to receive care.
As I said, I'm a pharmacist of over 20 years, and I spent nearly 10 of those working at my local hospital in Wyong on the Central Coast. I understand the difficulty that many people have in accessing health care in my local community, including MRIs. That's why one of our key election commitments was providing Wyong Public Hospital, our community hospital, with a Medicare funded MRI licence. I'm pleased that this commitment has been met and that an MRI machine is now being installed at Wyong hospital. I'm told the machine should be up and running before the end of the year. This means that locals who were previously wheeled out of the hospital will be able to get affordable, life-saving scans in our own hospital rather than having to go elsewhere.
I committed to this licence in 2019 after joining community efforts to save our hospital from privatisation under the state Liberal government, alongside my state colleagues the members for Wyong and The Entrance, David Harris and David Mehan. The former government tried to sell off our hospital and, at a federal level, refused to grant this license. Together, our community saved our hospital from privatisation, and now we're delivering an MRI licence for our community. The Central Coast and the people in communities like mine are a priority for the Albanese government.
One of the key priorities of this budget is manufacturing, building Australian capability. We saw the vulnerabilities through the COVID pandemic, and we're determined to shift this. I'm pleased to confirm in this budget a food manufacturing hub for the coast, which will receive $17.14 million from the government backed up by $37.5 million from industry. This is a project that industry has been pushing for years. It will create more than 280 local jobs, including 85 during construction and 200 ongoing jobs in food manufacturing. It will also drive economic growth in the region and help the Central Coast expand its unique food and beverage market. The hub will be based at Lisarow and will further develop Australia's onshore manufacturing capabilities. It will also support the local economy by increasing opportunities for training, education, skills, research and development. Funding for the hub will be provided over three years from 2022-23. It's part of the government's broader 'future made in Australia' plan to develop local manufacturing capabilities and upskill the manufacturing sector workforce.
This project, as I mentioned, has the full support of local industry, including Central Coast Industry Connect and their partners Trendpac, the RDA and the University of Newcastle. I recently heard from the Executive Director of Central Coast Industry Connect, Frank Sammut, who is partnering with us on this project. He told me:
The food and beverage industry contributes $1.4 billion in output to the region. This project will boost the local food and beverage manufacturing ecosystem and will make the Central Coast a competitive food manufacturing and innovation destination.
This is a significant investment in our food manufacturing industry, and it could help local food manufacturers grow their ideas nationally and even globally.
Our budget also confirms $40 million in roads funding for the Central Coast. One of the No. 1 issues people raise with me is the condition of our local roads. The Central Coast has some of the worst road in New South Wales, and, after recent weather events, there are more potholes and hazards on our roads than there have been before. A $40 million injection into local roads will make a difference. It will improve safety, ease congestion and reduce the wear and tear on people's cars.
Our government is also delivering $4 million towards Tuggerah Lake, with the funds to go towards programs including flood mitigation and stormwater management. After the recent flooding events our community has faced over the past years, we need to make sure locals are safe when disasters hit but also that we're better prepared ahead of future disasters. Our $4 million commitment will help address these concerns, while improving water quality in the catchment—something that locals so welcome.
We're also delivering much-needed upgrades to community infrastructure. Our budget includes $1.5 million to help fund stage 5 of Tuggerawong Pathway. I've worked closely with the state member for Wyong, David Harris, and the Tuggerawong Pathway Community Group over many years to make this happen. I'd like to recognise Jodie Davis from the Tuggerawong Pathway Community Group and the others who have been working tirelessly to support this project. Jodie said to me, 'We're thrilled to see this financial support to complete stage 5 of the project.' Our community made their wishes clear when council asked us to vote on which option we wanted, and 87 per cent of people voted for option A, which was to continue the pathway around the foreshore all the way to Don Small Oval. This project is a community-led project, in partnership with local council, which will mean so much to our local community and boost tourism.
We're also delivering a much-needed $1.2 million in the budget to bring life back to The Entrance. This includes funding for Vera's Water Garden, making the waterfront plaza play space more accessible, and renovating The Entrance ocean baths, which is an iconic heritage listed site which has been popular with visitors and locals on the coast for generations. We're delivering $250,000 for the Baker Park master plan and another $100,000 to help Wyong Tennis Club renovate their clubhouse.
These are much needed upgrades in a community which, unfortunately, was overlooked by the previous government for almost a decade. Our community is growing rapidly, and yet that growth wasn't matched by investment in infrastructure, wasn't matched by an investment in health care and wasn't matched by investment in our local economy.
I am so pleased to be part of a Labor government which is finally delivering for the northern end of the Central Coast. These community upgrades will breathe life back into the Central Coast, help our community recover from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and make sure that our community is ready now and into the future.
As a pharmacist—and still the only pharmacist in this place—I've spoken many times about affordability of medicines, about people who have come to me and said, 'Which medicine can I skip?' 'Which one can I take every second day?' or 'Which one can I do without?' I've had patients, particularly mums with children, walk into the pharmacy after a medical appointment and hand me a bundle of prescriptions and ask which medications they could skip or avoid. I've had a mum ask me could her children share a bottle of antibiotic mixture because she couldn't pay for both. This is a common problem. For the first time in the 75-year history of the PBS, our government has now passed legislation to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general co-payment from $42.50 to $30 from 1 January 2023. This will make a significant impact, particularly with the rising cost of living for many families in my community.
We've also committed to cheaper child care, and I am so pleased that this will benefit more than one million Australian families, including around just under 7,000 families in my community in Dobell. It will cut out-of-pocket costs for families with children in early education and care and help them save more than $1,700 in that first year. It will help local parents—if they want to—to go back to the workforce or to work more hours. I've heard from families, particularly women, about this. One young woman I spoke to had got back into the workforce. She had a four-year-old and a soon-to-be six-year-old. She'd worked really hard for a promotion and when she secured that promotion most of it disappeared in the cost of child care. This has to change, and under our government it will, for families like hers and families like that all across Australia. It will help more parents return to the workforce and work more hours if they want to.
We're also doing the same for age and veteran pensioners, helping them to work more if they want to, while keeping their age pension. Following the government's Jobs and Skills Summit in September, we introduced legislation to credit $4,000 to age pensioners from 1 December this year. In a community like mine, where one in five people are aged over 65, a popular place for retirees, and with workforce shortages, this could be a real boost to the local economy, as Paula Martin, the regional director of the New South Wales Business Chamber Central Coast has told me. It'll increase the amount pensioners can earn before their pension is reduced, which will increase incentives for those receiving a pension who want to work more and help us address those acute labour shortages we're seeing, particularly in regional Australia.
As I mentioned, my community on the Central Coast is a popular place for older people to live. One in five people are aged over 65, and many people in my community live in residential aged care, receive at-home care or have a family or loved one receiving aged care. Before I was elected in 2016, this was very close to my heart and I know it is something that touches so many people across Australia. No individual or family is not touched by the crisis that we have experienced in aged care in Australia. I have heard from countless local people about their experiences and from older people who are fearful about being forced to end up in aged care. Many of them voted for Labor at the last election on the issue of aged care. They have asked me, as their local MP, for urgent action on recommendations handed down by the Royal Commission into Aged-Care Quality and Safety.
I was so pleased when Minister Wells introduced this legislation to parliament. This is now the first legislation to go through the House and, as recommended by the royal commission, it will address the urgent funding, quality and safety issues. It will also provide additional protection for older Australians living in residential aged care with a series of measures to increase transparency and accountability for providers. I know this will give so many people and families peace of mind at this time, for themselves and for the older people they love and care for. This legislation has now passed through the Senate and it implements three more of the government's urgent election commitments that put security, dignity, quality and humanity back into aged care.
As I conclude, I want to thank our aged-care workers, who, as has often been said, deserve more than thanks. I did some work in aged-care homes as a pharmacist and I have so much respect and admiration for those capable, dedicated and hardworking yet undervalued workers. I am so pleased about the decision of the commission last week to lift their wages to give them a living wage so that they can afford to do the work that they love that so many of our families and loved ones benefit from.
I am so proud to be able to speak as the first Labor government and I look forward to being part of shaping the direction of Australia.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:42): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023. I want to focus on the digital economy and the approach that this government is taking. First, I want to touch first on why the digital economy is so important and on the lack of a clear policy framework from this government. Second, I want to touch on the particular challenge of skilled migration and the role it can play in bringing people with needed high-tech skills into Australia, and the government's mismanagement of that issue. Third, I want to talk about digital government services and, again, the lack of a plan from this government.
I want to start with the proposition that key to our prosperity is technological innovation. The rise of the digital economy over the last 20 years or so has been associated with and a driver of significant increases in prosperity, increases in productivity and increases in efficiency. It is no wonder that governments around the world have a very strong focus on this. We can look at a country like Singapore, which has enacted measures to attract and boost start-up companies. We can look at Israel as a leader in defence, water and communications technology. We could look at Estonia, noted around the world for digital delivery of government services.
It is very important that we recognise there is intense global competition and, when it comes to our digital economy strategy, it is important that Australia plays to its strengths. The former coalition government quite explicitly laid out a digital economy strategy. Our goal was for Australia to be a world-leading digital economy and society by 2030, and elements of that strategy included helping to support small businesses to go digital, to grow the digital workforce, to create homegrown tech start-ups and to build our digital infrastructure. And I am very pleased to say there were quite a number of initiatives being driven pretty hard by the previous government. I would certainly hope, in Australia's national interest, that the present government would show a similar commitment to the digital economy. But, unfortunately, that is not the case.
We know that one of the key success factors in the digital economy is vigorous competition. Technology businesses are disrupting older businesses, be it Wikipedia disrupting Encyclopaedia Britannica, be it digital photography disrupting Kodak, be it streaming video-on-demand services disrupting traditional television. All of that delivers great benefits to consumers, and consumers are voting with their feet. But, if we look at the approach this government wants to take, we've seen efforts by minister for industry to increase union involvement in the technology sector and in start-up businesses. We've seen the minister for industrial relations waging a war against the gig economy, calling it a 'cancer' through the economy. This government has not appointed a minister for the digital economy, unlike the previous government. We can also look at some specific measures. like the budget measure cutting a $3.9 million program established by the coalition to assist more mid-career women to transition into the technology sector workforce. All of these are approaches that are going in the wrong direction. That is particularly troubling because of the importance of the digital economy to increase productivity.
We know Australia's economy has a productivity challenge. In this budget we've seen the government reduce the long-term-productivity growth assumption to 1.2%. A government that was serious about lifting productivity would be driving reforms to grow Australia's digital economy. What did the Productivity Commission find in its recent interim report? The report, titled 5-year productivity inquiry: Australia’s data and digital dividend: interim report, found:
Digital technology and data will continue to shape global economic growth and social change over the coming years.
But, the Productivity Commission warned:
Whether Australia fully realises the productivity dividend arising from these opportunities depends on how effectively governments, businesses and individuals can recognise and safely harness these changes for our own benefit.
Well, unless we see more focus from this government, the opportunity to capture the productivity dividend from the digital economy is at risk of being lost.
Let me turn then, secondly, to a specific issue where we've seen a pretty disappointing approach from this government, which is the question of the role of skilled migration in bringing in key people with critical skills that are needed in the tech sector. It can often be the case that one or two people with key skills, brought in from overseas markets, can then be the linchpin of a team of 50 or 100 people—employed locally, developing software, taking new software to market and project managing all of that. We know that there is a forecast employment shortfall of over 650,000 workers in the tech sector. Much of this, indeed most of it, should be met with workers trained and developed in Australia. But there is a key role for people with those technical skills and experience, and by bringing them in from overseas, we catalyse jobs growth for Australians.
Unfortunately, Australia's visa processing times under this government are lagging behind those of our key competitors. That is a disincentive in attracting talent into Australia. The Tech Council of Australia makes the point that currently there is no clear time frame given by this government for the processing of talent visas. If we compare that to France—which is not normally a country that is cited for efficient government operations—the French, to their credit, have a special tech start-up visa for skilled workers that includes processing within two to five days. In Canada, a visa through the global talent program in tech takes ten days. So we need to do better.
Astoundingly, the government has gone in the wrong direction: it's making things worse. A new ministerial direction, signed by the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security, came into effect just a few days ago, effectively de-prioritising visa processing for cybersecurity and critical tech occupations. That direction removed 27 job roles from the priority migration skilled occupation list, including ICT security specialists and tech workers. The CEO of the Tech Council, Kate Pounder, met with me, and she's met with many other stakeholders and parliamentarians on this issue. The Tech Council had this to say:
It is a surprise … the government has decided it was the opportune time to de-prioritise these skills in our migration system.
The relevant ministers should meet with key business stakeholders like the Tech Council and they should agree to a plan to support Australian companies, including small businesses and start-ups, in accessing critical cyber and software engineering skills in a timely way so that they can access the skills they need—often it can be that one or two people with key skills that you want to bring in from overseas.
By contrast, we have in effect a go-slow on skilled tech visas. That is really not all that surprising when you look at the underlying hostility of the union movement to skilled immigration. We saw that on full display in the lead up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. The Australian Workers Union said that it wanted all new migrants to be automatically signed up to a union on arrival. It also wanted employers to pay a fee of at least $10,000 to hire a migrant. The peak union body, the ACTU, wanted to get rid of employer-sponsored visas. Instead, it wanted sponsorship to be done by an industry-wide body with, of course, union involvement. Inevitably, this would be slower, more bureaucratic and less responsive to business needs. All of these ideas would be a disaster when it comes to meeting the huge need in Australia's rapidly growing tech sector for people with key skills. Bringing in from overseas people with key skills—likely in relatively small numbers—could catalyse the employment of very large numbers of people locally, because when you can get one or two key people with critical skills—in a major project to implement a new software system, for example—it can allow the rest of the team to be built around that key person or those key people. So this government's approach to immigration to support the needs of the technology sector is very, very disappointing.
The third area I will touch on is the use of digital technology to deliver better services to citizens. It is clear that citizens want to interact with the government digitally, just as people are used to dealing with their bank, their insurance company and their airline digitally. Many people prefer that, finding it a smoother and more efficient way to operate.
In the last financial year 1.2 billion online transactions occurred between Australians and the government. That is powerful evidence that Australians find this an efficient and appealing way to deal with government. When the coalition was in government we had a clear focus on improving digital service delivery to citizens. Unfortunately, we see no such clear focus from the present government. One of the first actions of the incoming government was to take the Digital Transformation Agency out of the centre of government, out of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and plunge it into the bowels of the Department of Finance. The government also has an approach of closing the eyes of Services Australia to the latest service trends in digital service delivery from the private sector. Instead, we're going to have a more inward looking and bloated public service that is not up to speed with the best practice of the private sector in the delivery of digital services.
Recently, for example, the Minister for the Public Service spoke to the Institute of Public Administration, but there was no vision for the use of digital channels to serve citizens better. Instead, she talked simply about the need to have more public servants. Of course, that so-called reform is occurring in lockstep with the union movement. Minister Gallagher said the government was talking openly with the Community and Public Sector Union, and no doubt it is, because more public servants means more union delegates. What really stood out was what was missing from Minister Gallagher's speech. There was nothing about digital service delivery. There was no enthusiasm for how technology could be used to give Australians interacting with their government a more efficient, reliable and seamless service experience.
By contrast, when the coalition was in government, we worked hard on these issues. We upgraded the myGov app, we oversaw an expansion of the digital identity system, and we rolled out digital assistants to cut the time that staff had to take to deal with simple customer inquiries. We worked on a fundamental mind-shift within government, focusing on Australians as customers. When governments do this, they can, in turn, help citizens have a much better experience in dealing with government and using digital tools to facilitate that engagement.
Certainly the New South Wales government, also a coalition government, has done an extraordinary job in this regard, and Service NSW is really a benchmark around Australia, and, indeed, globally, for having a customer-service focus within government and using technology to support citizens and the way they interact with government. The New South Wales government has led the way on so many things, such as a digital drivers licence.
The contrast between that kind of thinking and what we saw recently from Minister Gallagher was really quite striking. The words 'customer' and 'digital' appeared just once in the entire speech.
Now, of course, Australians are rightly concerned about the recent severe data breaches involving Optus, Medibank Private and other companies. But, again, there is a tool available to the government, should they choose to use it. An enormous amount of work, done by the previous government, is ready for this government to take up. The development of a digital identity system, which the coalition government commenced in 2015, has stalled significantly under Labor. This is a huge missed opportunity, because this system would enable a customer to use a trusted identity provider, with verification achieved through electronic checks against secure government records, such as those of the Australian Passport Office or the Australian Taxation Office. This in turn would mean that, when you, as a customer, sought to establish your identity, to establish an account with a bank or a telco or another organisation, that organisation would not need to store your data. Instead, your data would be stored with the trusted identity provider, and the computer systems of the two organisations would interact so that a certification would be provided digitally to the organisation you were establishing the account with, to confirm that you were the person you said you were. That would mean that we would not have large numbers of identity documents being stored by a whole range of private sector businesses. So there's huge potential here.
I certainly call on the Albanese Labor government to show much more enthusiasm in this area. Unfortunately, the Minister for Government Services is much more interested in political payback exercises than in using technology to deliver citizens better services. But that is just one of the many ways in which a greater focus on the digital economy would deliver much better outcomes.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:57): What an extraordinary contribution from the member for Bradfield, who, for nine months, was the minister for robodebt in the former government. Is that his idea of digital expansion? Is that his idea of a 'fundamental mind-shift' in digital delivery of services—to send robodebt notices to people who didn't owe the money? It was an illegal scheme, the details of which are now being uncovered by the robodebt royal commission.
I stand today to talk about the budget—Labor's first budget in almost a decade, which delivers the plan that Australians voted for six months ago. This responsible budget is right for the times and ready for the future. Broadly speaking, the budget does three things: it provides responsible cost-of-living relief that does not add to inflation, it invests in the capability of our people and the capacity of our economy, and it begins the hard task of long-term budget repair. This budget delivers for Australians, helping them to manage cost-of-living pressures and to plan for the future.
Our $7.5 billion five-point cost-of-living package provides responsible and targeted relief to households, without putting additional pressure on inflation. The package provides cheaper child care, with higher subsidies for around 1.26 million Australian families and no family in Australia worse off; expanded paid parental leave, with six months paid leave by 2026; cheaper medicines, slashing the PBS maximum general co-payment to $30 a script; and more affordable housing, delivering our Housing Australia Future Fund and the new National Housing Accord; and it's getting wages moving again, by supporting a wage increase for minimum- and award-wage workers, fixing the broken bargaining system and investing in the capacity of the economy. As I'm on my feet in this chamber, those in the main chamber are talking about the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill, a bill that will strengthen the ability of workers to get higher wages. What's more, this is a responsible budget, providing the economic stability and security that Australians need. It repays hard work and it rewards aspiration.
We know there are difficult times ahead, and we are being up-front about the challenges we face. We are experiencing a time of extreme uncertainty overseas and devastating natural disasters at home, with rising inflation and higher interest rates having an impact on the economy. The best defence in these difficult times is a responsible budget, and that's what was delivered by the Treasurer two weeks ago. This budget marks an end to a wasted decade under the former government. They gave us an energy chaos, they gave us stagnant wages—deliberately. It was a deliberate feature of their economic architecture. I find it hard to believe even now that any Australian government would boast that their plan was to keep Australian workers' wages low. They gave us a skills crisis and a trillion dollars of debt without an economic dividend to show for it. We can't clean up the whole mess overnight, but we've hit the ground running, and we are working every day to build a better future for Australia.
As the member for Lyons, I am delighted that this budget really delivers for Tasmania and for my electorate. Tasmania is well and truly on the map under the Albanese government. It won't be off the map under us. We stay true to our election commitments. We have $685 million earmarked for infrastructure across Tasmania, including $540 million to upgrade Tasmania's road and highway networks, including the Bass Highway, the Tasman Highway and the East Tamar and West Tamar Highways—and I note the member for Bass is in the chamber, and I'm sure she welcomes this investment by the Labor government. We have $15 million going to the Royal Flying Doctor Service at Launceston Airport to upgrade and modernise their facilities. They do such vital work for Tasmania's health sector, particularly across the regions. And we have $35 million to upgrade the TransLink transport hub out at Launceston Airport as well, to drive efficiencies and productivity.
A further $71 million is earmarked for targeted industry grants in Tasmania to modernise facilities and support manufacturing in my state. The Albanese government is providing more than $71 million to support the Norske Skog Boyer paper mill, the Waverley Mills wool mill, the Costa Berries distribution centre in East Devonport, the Inghams poultry facility in Sorell and the Nyrstar zinc works in Hobart. In Lyons, this means Norske, Australia's last remaining newsprint mill, can further explore options to reduce emissions and improve long-term financial stability and sustainability, through a feasibility study for the replacement of its coal fired boiler. Similarly, we are supporting upgrades to the Inghams poultry facility in Sorell to help it transition towards a carbon-zero certified business model. These two companies are major employers in Lyons, each of them supporting hundreds of jobs across regional Southern Tasmania.
It is clear that the Albanese government is committed to investment in Tasmania and in regional Australia more broadly. Our regional investments add economic value, and they improve regional liveability. We are much more interested in delivering a dividend for the community rather than a dividend for electoral margins. My electorate is already directly benefiting from the Albanese Labor government's commitment to improve regional liveability. I advocated for several important community projects, all of which were included in the budget and all of which will improve a range of services and facilities through my electorate. In the Brighton municipality, for example, the Seymour Street Master Plan will improve local community infrastructure including parking and bus stop areas, the extension and refurbishment of existing playground and picnic facilities, multipurpose outdoor courts, event space and a dog park. I was also particularly pleased to announce the Treasurer had confirmed $1.5 million towards a new Brighton GP clinic, and that was included in the budget. When the former government announced support for GPs in Tasmania I was very disappointed to see that their support was restricted to the north of the state—the electorates of Bass and Braddon, where the two Liberal MPs were based—and there was no extra support for southern Tasmania, which also includes areas and regions of GP shortage. We're righting that wrong.
I congratulate Dr Mary Lumsden and the Brighton Council for their hard work and commitment in getting this important project for Brighton up and running. We know that there is a shortage of GPs across regional areas, not just in the north, Member for Bass. This investment is a great start to relieving this pressure, alongside key health measures in the federal Labor budget, including three Medicare bulk-billing urgent care clinics for Tasmania; regional mental health telehealth services for Tasmanians; a 30 per cent cut to the price of medicines on the PBS; a strengthening Medicare fund for more affordable health care, including after-hours access; and a boost in workforce incentives to attract GPs and other healthcare professionals to rural and regional areas across Tasmania.
This budget also delivers for the Derwent Valley, with $5 million towards community sportsgrounds upgrades and $2 million to help Norske Skog modernise at Boyer. I promised that $5 million at every election since my election in 2016. Of course, we've had Liberal governments in two elections and the Liberals never came through with this $5 million for the Derwent Valley. It has taken the election of a Labor government to deliver this $5 million promise to the Derwent Valley. I'm so proud we're finally getting it done. Mayor Michelle Dracoulis described the supporting infrastructure announcement as a real win for the Derwent Valley. Her council is working closely with user groups and stakeholders to get construction started at both Boyer Oval and Tynwald Park as soon as possible.
Another big win for Lyons in the budget is confirmation of funding for the South East Regional Development Association jobs and skills hub at Sorell. Mayor Kerry Vincent has long advocated for this project and the benefits it will bring to the community by making the south-east region more sustainable and responsive to local requirements for training, job creation and employer support. The people in the corridor are delighted by this announcement. I can hear them cheering.
The budget also provided confirmation of the reopening of a Centrelink service centre in Sorell—a fully staffed centre—and more funding for the Sorell Memorial Hall extension and upgrade. Both projects are hugely important for the community in this fast-growing municipality.
I am very pleased in the budget there is about $500,000 for upgrades at Prospect Park in the Meander Valley, bringing that busy community sporting precinct into the 21st century. Sport plays such an important role in our communities and our connections with each other and in our physical and mental health. Prospect Park is the home of the Launceston City Football Club. Prospect Park currently hosts more than 3,500 players a year. It's right on the border between my electorate and the electorate of the member for Bass. She would know it well. I'm sure she also welcomes this investment in that park. With another 1,000 homes to be built in the area over the next 10 years it's clear that this facility needs futureproofing. The Meander Valley is a growing area. Football Tasmania President Bob Gordon, CEO Matt Bulkeley and Club President Danny Linger have been working tirelessly on this project. It's fantastic for the quickly growing Meander Valley region that that can now get underway.
Further to the north-west in Kentish is one of the most important funding commitments in this budget. It is more modest in terms of finances, but it's one of the most important. There is $200,000 to improve and provide training for suicide prevention and advocacy in Tasmania. We know that fewer than half of Tasmanians in distress engage with support services before seeking to take their own life. This funding will assist the Kentish Regional Clinic based in the north-west town of Sheffield to cover direct service delivery and administration costs of their CORES program, a community network of suicide prevention training and awareness across Tasmania, which I'm pleased to see is also being implemented interstate. They're doing really good work. I'm very pleased we're able to support them. Sharon, Natalie, Paige and the entire team at the Kentish Regional Clinic and across the CORES program are to be commended for their dedication to their work and to their local community.
There is much more, but I'll run out of time before I get there. That's just a snapshot of how the Albanese Labor government's first budget is delivering for Tasmania and for Lyons. There is much more, and I do look forward to sharing with my constituents the news about what this budget is delivering for Lyons in the weeks and months ahead.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the mayors, community groups, service organisations, clubs and others who have helped me secure these commitments. None of us are in here doing it by ourselves. We've got teams behind us. We've got staff, volunteers and all these clubs and people in the community who come to us seeking support. I know all of us try and support as many as we possibly can. Unfortunately, the budget's a finite pot of money, and so some things miss out, but we're always, all of us, across all the parties, in there plugging away for our groups and our communities. This budget delivers for Lyons, it delivers for Tasmania and it delivers for Australia. It's responsible, it's right for the times and it sets Australia up for the future. I commend this bill to the House.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (17:10): As I was driving across the electorate last week, I saw service stations across the region advertising fuel ranging from $2.20 a litre up to almost $2.50 a litre. Across Northern Tasmania there is concern over increasing costs from the petrol station to the supermarket. Mortgage rates, health insurance premiums and the threat of significant power prices have almost everyone I know redoing their budget to meet the increased cost-of-living demands. Next year will be a particularly difficult one for many, with electricity bills expected to soar 20 per cent and a further 30 per cent next financial year. While some can absorb the cost by making adjustments here and there, many have legitimate concerns over how they will meet increased costs when there is already very little wriggle room. Christmas is just around the corner, and by then Treasury is tipping annual inflation at 7.75 per cent.
Over the past few years in this job I've pushed for reasonable support as the economic conditions continued to evolve, particularly as the pandemic took hold. In a time of economic turmoil, I know that many feel let down by the lack of immediate cost-of-living measures in Labor's recent budget. Additional childcare support is welcomed, although I still think the measures miss the mark when it comes to supporting families with young children, particularly in the Northern Tasmanian region I represent, where accessibility is still an issue. Cheap child care doesn't make a difference when the system doesn't work. It is, in my opinion, a missed opportunity for genuine reform of the sector.
Additionally, necessary support for pensioners, families with school-aged children or your average working Australians is sorely missing from this budget. I was, however, extremely pleased to see support for a number of health commitments I made during the 2022 federal election, that were then matched by Labor, appear in the recent budget. At the end of the day, bipartisan support for local projects ensures that the community comes out as a winner. As an elected representative, I'm constantly delivering for my Northern Tasmanian region. So I'm pleased to see that Labor's budget supports the $20 million I pledged during the election towards the establishment of a standalone palliative care centre in Launceston. Through my work with the state government and other key stakeholders, it was clear that $20 million dollars would be necessary for the project to get off the ground and that Labor's initial pledge of $5 million was seemingly plucked out of nowhere, with no-one having done their due diligence, whereas I'd also secured a written commitment from the state government to deliver the clinical planning.
Cancer survivors will also benefit from $580,000 to fund a post-cancer survivorship trial program at the WP Holman Clinic. I'm particularly passionate about this program, having met regularly with the clinicians who have driven the creation of the program over the past few years. Again, Labor matched this commitment during the election, though I suspect without actually having any idea of what it was. Still, it's in the budget, and I'm looking forward to seeing this program roll out in my electorate.
The establishment of a leading medical research innovation centre, spearheaded by the Clifford Craig Foundation, is also one step closer after receiving funding through the recent budget. In April this year, I announced $4 million to relocate the foundation to the Northern Integrated Care Service building at the Launceston General Hospital. I've been working with the Clifford Craig team on this vision for medical research for several years and agree with CEO Peter Milne's sentiment that this funding will be a game changer for our region. This investment will expand the capacity to translate health research into improved practice and patient outcomes in rural and regional Australia. Importantly, it will also assist in recruiting, retaining and training medical specialists and high-calibre health professionals for our region. Once again, Labor matched the commitment within a few days of the announcement, and the funding in the budget brings it one step closer to fruition, but, once again, this was after I'd undertaken the necessary work to secure the cooperation of the state government.
While speaking on health, I'm curious to know the status of Launceston's urgent care clinic, which was a key announcement during Labor's campaign in the electorate of Bass. I've heard a number of Labor members spruik the commitment to urgent care clinics in their electorates, and I'd love to know if they have more information than I do as to when the clinics will open, where they will specifically be located and what the model will look like.
Other key commitments which I secured prior to the election through the March budget—the Flinders Island Safe Harbour Project and an Exeter show and recreation hub—have received funding assurances through this budget. I'm extremely disappointed, though, that it's taken the federal government six months to uphold the funding commitment, causing unnecessary stress and uncertainty for these communities and likely resulting in increased project costs. But I welcome the news nonetheless.
Closer to where I live, the George Town Aquatic, Health and Wellbeing Centre was a matched election commitment and one that featured as the cornerstone of the Bass campaign. As a local and former mayor of George Town, I know how much the community is looking forward to seeing this project get off the ground. The aquatic centre was supported by both major parties during the election, ensuring that the project would come to fruition regardless of the government of the day.
The commitment, much like the Ravenswood Skate Park, seemingly falls under the Investing in Our Communities Program to deliver small-scale community, sport and infrastructure projects across Australia, with funds spread out over five years, though further details are lacking. There's little to no forthcoming information on when the money will be made available for the project, with George Town Council still waiting for confirmation. Meeting with Ravenswood locals prior to the budget, they expressed concerns that they had not heard from the government at all since the election about their project, one that will require the involvement of the council, who were not even consulted prior to the announcement. Labor may well say that the project is in the budget somewhere, but the lack of interaction with the community is very telling.
I also have questions over the federal government's commitment to the future of the Launceston City Deal, an innovative plan involving all three levels of government. Originally a five-year investment to position Launceston as one of Australia's most liveable and innovative regional cities, the deal was extended to 10 years, through to 2027, with over $560 million of total investment earmarked to deliver jobs and skills, drive infrastructure and investment growth and improve the liveability and sustainability of the city.
Under the coalition government a commitment of over $254 million was made towards supporting infrastructure projects. This year's budget has indicated funds for the next few years before it disappears completely off the books a full two years before the city deal is due to wrap up. For an initiative that's delivered so much for the city so far, and with significant plans still in the works, I would like the government to be forthcoming on the future of the deal, which is critical to the future of our city.
Key projects under the city deal include a commitment of $130 million to the redevelopment of the University of Tasmania's Inveresk campus, the largest infrastructure project undertaken in the city and the centrepiece of the deal. The North Esk River pedestrian cycling bridge opened last year, and earlier this year I officially opened the new library and student services building. Two more buildings are under development and expected to open next year, with the new campus expected to create 225 new academic and supporting full-time equivalent jobs.
The deal also includes significant funding to improve the health of the Tamar Estuary through infrastructure upgrades and catchment management actions. Key projects within this funding include the Tamar Estuary urban water infrastructure upgrade project, which, while it may not sound terribly exciting, has had a demonstrable impact, with upgrades stopping around the equivalent of five Olympic swimming pools of sewage heading into the river each year.
Then there's the $30 million to develop the Defence and Maritime Innovation and Design Precinct at the Australian Maritime College. Launceston has long been considered a hub of—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Stevens ): Order! A quorum is no longer present in the chamber. The chamber will suspend until a quorum is regained.
Sitting suspended from 17 : 19 to 17 : 22
(Quorum formed)
Mrs ARCHER: Before the suspension I was saying there's also $30 million to develop the Defence and Maritime Innovation and Design Precinct at the Australian Maritime College. Launceston has long been considered a hub of excellence in maritime engineering and innovation. This new precinct will foster maritime-specific solutions as well as a broad range of science and technology capabilities, drawing academics from across the country to support defence science and technology.
On a much smaller scale, but vitally important to local schools, has been the Greater Launceston Transformation Project, providing 600 Internet of Things kits to 40 schools across the region, inspiring our children to engage in the ever-growing technology fields. I visited Invermay Primary School late last year to see the kits in action, and what these children can come up with is incredible.
It's important to point out that Labor made a lot of noise about the progress of the $15 million northern suburbs hub during the last term, notwithstanding the fact that they had only committed half the funding to the project. The handover of ownership from the council to the state government plus key environmental testing at the site did cause some delays. Now, six months after the federal election, I'm curious to know what gains Labor has made in progressing this important infrastructure project that also sits under the Launceston City Deal.
Northern Tasmania is flourishing, and initiatives like the Launceston City Deal are cementing the region as a desirable place for people to live and work, and for families to establish themselves in the region long-term. It has proven to me to be a collaborative model that works between all levels of government, and I want to see Labor back it in and demonstrate their continued support for a better Bass.
Dr GARLAND (Chisholm) (17:24): I'm delighted to speak in support of this bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, because this bill shows that Labor were really serious in the election about working with communities to build a better future for all Australians. I know that my community of Chisholm in Melbourne will benefit from the changes and commitments an Albanese Labor government is making in the budget in so many different ways. Whether you're a student, a young person, a parent, someone who relies on medicines, someone involved in a local sporting club or a resident who values community safety and infrastructure, our budget is delivering for you, your family and your neighbours in Chisholm.
I'm really thrilled that the commitments I made during the campaign election are funded in this budget. I said on many occasions when speaking in the community that one of the big tests of performance was delivering on the promises that I was making during my pitch, and I am so pleased that that's exactly what we've done, that every single project that I committed to during the election is in this budget. Not only do this bill and the budget mean there is vital funding for critical projects and programs but, more than that, and more fundamentally, they begin the work of restoring trust in politicians, in politics, in our institutions and in our democracy by our being accountable doing what we said we were going to do. I was horrified, as I am sure so many other people were, that trust and faith in democracy and the parliament were at rock bottom just before the election.
There is a lot of work to do. Every single day, when I would speak to people in my community, they were so disappointed and distrustful of government and institutions. I can't really blame them for feeling that way, because there had been a decade of inaction in my community. I am really delighted that I was given the opportunity to try and restore some of that trust and make sure that our democracy remains as robust as it always has been in Australia.
Beyond restoring accountability, faith and integrity in politics, what does this budget mean for the people Chisholm? It means that almost 7½ thousand families will now be able to access cheaper child care. During the election campaign—I remember this really well—I met little Hannah at a Goodstart centre in Box Hill, in our local area and spoke to Nicola Forrest and Jay Weatherill about their important work with the Thrive by Five campaign. This campaign emphasises just how critical the first five years of a child's life are in developing our youngest people and giving them the best start in life so they are set up for really great outcomes. Our commitment means cheaper child care, which means that more of our youngest community members will be able to get high-quality early years education.
I really want to acknowledge the extraordinary work that educators do across my electorate and, indeed, across every electorate in this country each day to teach and nurture children. This announcement means not just more money in the pockets of families to spend in our local community but also greater workforce participation by parents, and particularly women, who still tend to be the primary caregivers. This is good for our economy and fantastic for our community. Danielle Wood of the Grattan Institute was very clear at the Jobs and Skills Summit earlier this year when she made the astute comment:
I can't help reflect that if untapped women's workforce participation was a massive iron ore deposit, we would have governments falling over themselves to give subsidies to get it out of the ground.
Making child care cheaper is part of making progress on women's workforce participation.
I note that elsewhere in this place at this moment there is a debate underway on our Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill. That bill addresses the pervasive and awful fact that there is a 14.1 per cent pay gap between women and men, which means women are less likely to be the primary breadwinner in the family when families have to make those kinds of decisions. That bill also means that people working in early childhood education—those wonderful people who, as I acknowledged earlier, do so much to teach and nurture the youngest people in our community—will finally be able to get the pay that they deserve and that their work will be truly valued.
Doing what we said we were going to do is already a hallmark of the Albanese Labor government. On Friday I spent a sunny afternoon in the company of the Blackburn South Cricket Club and the Blackburn NewHope Football Club at Mirrabooka pavilion in Blackburn South, where we confirmed our commitment to giving the club $2 million towards a new pavilion. The precinct is sorely in need of upgrades. It was fantastic to have local councillors and the local Labor state member for Box Hill, Paul Hamer, there, with Paul announcing funding towards this project too. Our partnership will deliver an asset the community really needs, and I want to commend the efforts of both sporting clubs in the work that they have done in putting together plans and making the very strong case for this project at all levels of government.
We've also announced in the budget upgrades for the Mount Waverley Reserve. This is a terrific pavilion area. The Waverley Blues and Mount Waverley Cricket Club have worked so hard. They had a vision. They've taken me around their pavilion and the ground many times. Indeed, I had the great pleasure of introducing the now Deputy Prime Minister to the club during the election campaign when we made an announcement to fund upgrades. There's $4 million in this budget for facility and pavilion upgrades, and I'm so excited to get to work with the clubs, with council and with the community, especially ahead of the centenary celebrations of the clubs in a couple of years time.
We've also announced funds for upgrades to the Box Hill City Oval, which is a really important ground in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. It is a wonderful ground with wonderful people in the Box Hill Hawks and at the cricket club. Part of what our funding will provide for is women's change rooms. This is really important. We have some of the most elite female cricketers playing at this club. We have Meg Lanning calling this ground her home. I want to make sure, as do the clubs, that the facilities are fit for purpose for all the future Meg Lannings that I hope we'll see very soon.
People in this place are probably no strangers to the fact that I am very passionate about higher education. So I was so delighted to see in this budget a commitment to higher education through the funding of more university places. What does this mean for me and my community? It means that Monash University will have an additional 934 places, that the University of Divinity will have an additional 128 places and that Deakin University will have an additional 652 places. Education is really important to my community. People move into the area to give their kids the best start in life through accessing some of the excellent schools in the area. A lot of the students at the universities live not so far from where they grew up, so this is a really wonderful investment for families and young people in my community.
Labor went into this election saying that we would deliver a responsible budget that would rebuild the nation's capability for manufacturing at home with the National Reconstruction Fund. That is really important to my electorate, who want us to invest in advanced manufacturing in our community. This was clear to me every single day in the community during the campaign. It's an issue I care personally very strongly about and stand with my community to advocate for it.
But to truly unlock the economic opportunity and potential in the south-east and eastern suburbs of Melbourne, where my electorate is situated, we need to have better transport infrastructure. So I was delighted that I was able to announce during the election campaign and now confirm through this budget that we will be funding a business case for the trackless rapid transit system, which will connect parts of Melbourne that have never been connected easily by public transport. This means that the brand-new Heart Hospital that has just opened on Monash University's Clayton campus will now be connected, should this business case prove viable, to a an excellent, fast and efficient form of transport.
We've also invested $2.2 billion in the Suburban Rail Loop. This runs north to south in my electorate, and it means that the Monash and Deakin universities will be connected. It means that the nurses who live in Glen Waverley or Burwood and who work in Box Hill or Clayton at the two hospitals at either end of my electorate will more easily be able to get to work. We have a lot of healthcare workers in my electorate, and this infrastructure is going to go a long way to making their lives easier. Connecting Chisholm, connecting local jobs and making sure that our workforce can get around easily are really important.
We've also funded a headspace in Box Hill. I'm sure many people in this place know that there is huge demand for mental health services for young people, and, certainly, that's the case in my community. So I'm really pleased that we're getting to work providing this vital facility in the local area. It has been really well supported and advocated for by the Whitehorse City Council as well as by young people in my community who've written to me directly.
From 1 January next year the maximum copayment for scripts on the PBS, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, will drop to $30 per script. This is quite remarkable. It marks the first time in 75 years that the maximum cost of prescriptions will fall. This will be a huge help to Australians in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis inherited from the former Liberal government. This means that the around 20 per cent of residents in Chisholm with chronic long-term health conditions who are dependant on medications will have that pressure to find the money to pay for the medicine they need relieved. That is really important. At the heart of our campaign and at the heart of this budget is a desire to see politics mean something beyond the cynical spin we had unfortunately become used to seeing and hearing over the last few years.
One of the wonderful things that I get to do now as a member of this government is introduce the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer, my caucus colleagues, to my wonderful community. I was really delighted that last week, on 2 November, I had the great privilege of introducing the Treasurer of Australia to the hardworking and amazing Ashwood Chadstone Partnership Group to facilitate an important discussion around the housing accord, the $350 million investment in additional funding for housing. We discussed how we can build strong committees together and how important it is to invest in more housing for those in need.
The Ashwood Chadstone Partnership Group comprises a number of different organisations, including the Ashburton Ashwood Chadstone public tenants group. They work together with neighbourhood houses, with service providers and with representatives from all levels of government to make sure that we build strong neighbourhoods and resilient communities. I want to thank Natalie Rabey, who is the chair of that public tenants group for her instrumental role, not just on the day organising the event but also for her advocacy, which really stuck with the Treasurer.
For me, this is really what politics is about, what budgets are about. They are about investing in our communities, in the people who need that investment. They are about using the opportunity of government, of being a representative, to truly listen, to connect people and to work collaboratively to build a better future for everyone in Australia. This was a budget that respects our community. That is what this is really about—to not to take for granted the trust and faith that was placed on us, not just to spend money on services we need but to be responsible with taxpayers' money. That is exactly what our budget delivered, and I am so proud to be a member of a government that delivered such a strong budget.
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (17:38): I want to start by acknowledging that the government's first budget has been presented in a challenging economic environment. At a macro level, the outlook is pretty grim, with inflation peaking soon and growth slowing. Presenting a budget in these circumstances is difficult, balancing the need to provide relief with the need to not make things worse, the short-term concerns with the long-term imperatives. Overall, the October mini budget seems to be a pretty responsible budget. It still contains a $36.9 billion deficit but this is halved due to higher employment and commodity prices. This upside has been largely reinvested in budget repair. The budget contains some foundational work for incorporating climate change into our view of the world in adaptation and in litigation. It seems to be doing the right thing in resourcing the bodies we need to hold government accountable.
But there is further work to be done on longer term tax reform to ensure that we can actually pay for the things that we value in the decades to come. We still have a structural deficit. The hard work of getting onto a more sustainable path is not yet done. The budget contains minimal real tax reform apart from closing loopholes on multinational tax dodgers, which is expected to raise about $4.7 billion. I am hopeful that the May budget will start the longer term reform needed.
We need a tax system that's efficient, equitable, transparent and effective. We need to position Australia to deal with the demographic, social, economic and environmental challenges of the 21st century. We need adequate resources to provide quality education, health, aged care, child care and a decent income support system with dignity. There are a number of current problems with how our tax system is structured which will need to be addressed in the near future, ideally in the next budget. We are no longer a high-growth or high-productivity country. We have nearly $1 trillion in debt. Our tax system is complex, with duplication between states and the federal system and a lot of different types of taxes.
We have an ageing population with too much reliance on taxing workers. Income tax makes up half of all of our tax, which is one of the highest proportions in the world. We have an increasing burden on a declining proportion of the population. Australia's millennial generation is widely forecast to be the first generation since Federation to have worse economic outcomes than the generation before. The gap between the wealth of the old and the wealth of the young has almost doubled over the last few decades. People across the whole political spectrum are calling for tax reform, from Ken Henry, who conducted the last serious review of our tax system more than a decade ago, to Jeff Kennett, to the left-leaning McKell Institute—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Stevens ): Order! There being no quorum, the sitting is suspended.
Sitting suspended from 17:41 to 17:44
(Quorum formed)
Ms CHANEY: So what needs to be done about our tax system? We could do worse than to start with the recommendations made by Ken Henry 12 years ago. The issues identified then are generally still the same or worse than they were. For example, our tax system could be simplified to five key types of tax: personal income tax; business income tax; consumption tax; economic rents from natural resources and land; and taxes to address social, environmental or economic costs, such as tobacco, gambling and carbon emissions. We could get rid of many complexities, such as payroll tax, insurance tax and stamp duty.
We need to revisit the rate and breadth of GST and ensure that any changes are not disproportionately borne by lower-income earners. We need to look at how much taxpayers are earning from the development of our natural resources, especially in relation to fossil fuels that damage the planet. We need to revisit the tax treatment of housing to ensure that the main purpose of housing is to provide homes for people. We need to think about the balance between old and young Australians and make good on the intergenerational bargain to support people at the vulnerable beginning and end of life in exchange for the promise that we'll keep making things better.
Doing this will require the cooperation of federal and state governments. It will need to be community led, not just negotiated between government and business. It needs to be holistic. We can't look at one change to the tax system in isolation; we need a long-term, broad perspective so the whole system works better. For example, changes to GST can't be discussed without also discussing transfer payments to ensure the change is not regressive.
Over the last two decades, economic reform has slowed significantly. The Grattan Institute's Gridlock report published last year showed that both quantitatively and qualitatively we've lost our ability to reform. Reform has dried up for a few reasons: it can be politically unpopular; winning elections has become more important than doing what's best for the country; the focus tends to be on the immediate economic consequences, not the long term; public opposition gets louder faster with social media; and ministerial advisers tend to be more focused on minimising political damage than the public interest. Change has been driven more by ideology than by evidence. Vested interests have the potential to skew reform agendas, with climate change responses being the prime example. We've seen a worrying trend. Instead of deciding what's in the long-term public interest and then working out how to sell it, governments have begun by working out what people want to hear, irrespective of the long-term consequences. But I'm optimistic that, in this new government, we'll see some changes to this trend.
The stage 3 tax cuts may be the first serious test of which matters more: good policy or good politics. Institutional reforms can help kickstart economic reform. Increasing trust in politicians will help, through an effective and efficient National Anti-Corruption Commission and a reclaiming of politics by communities. We need to rebuild the public sector as frank and fearless advisers. I look forward to working with government in this term to start the community conversations we need to reform our tax system.
A brief discussion of the positive aspects of this budget: I welcome the inclusion of Statement 4 of Budget Paper No. 1, Measuring What Matters, an initial discussion of introducing an overarching wellbeing framework with a centralised set of indicators. This is a good start. We need different ways to measure progress that better reflect what we actually value. We need to think of progress as equitable, sustainable wellbeing, not just GDP. Countries around the world have started thinking differently about this, including Wales, Scotland and New Zealand.
The missing piece in the discussion outlined in the budget is that this needs to be an open, collaborative process, not something produced by Treasury with input only from the experts. Governments must engage with communities across the country to find out what Australia we want, what matters to us. This collaborative process is important not only to ensure that our framework reflects the domains we value but also to rebuild trust and engagement in our democracy. If we are involved in deciding what we value, we're much more likely to understand the trade-offs and consequent decisions.
On housing, the Housing Accord announced sounds good, with an aspirational target of a million new homes by 2029, but there's little indication of how we might reach this number. It depends a lot on the private sector. In terms of what government is actually committing, there seems to be the 30,000 social and affordable houses committed under the Housing Australia Future Fund and an 10,000 additional homes under the Housing Accord. With 27 per cent of renters and 13 per cent of mortgage holders in Curtin spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing, I'd like to see more long-term planning on how we address affordability.
One of my campaign platforms was to increase government accountability. I'm glad to see more resources allocated to institutions designed to keep government accountable, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Climate Change Authority, the Royal Commission into the Robodebt and the Australian National Audit Office. It's good to see some attempt to address the growing culture of outsourcing the strategic work from the Public Service. The intended saving of 3.6 billion on consultants, contractors and lawyers sounds good, but it will need to be accompanied by adequate resourcing of the public sector at the senior level. There's not much detail on whether this will happen.
Reform of the discretionary grants program has started, with the Community Development Grants Programme and round 6 of the Building Better Regions Fund being scrapped. Decisions made by the previous government at the discretion of the minister are also being reviewed. There's further work to be done to improve transparency on grant allocation, and I'll be seeking further clarity on this.
My community cares deeply about climate action. Setting the emissions reduction target was the first step, and now in this budget we see some of the work beginning to drive decarbonisation, build resilience and transparency, and ensure we have the governance structures needed to plan for the future. It's refreshing to see a level-headed, non-ideological discussion about the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. In relation to the opportunities presented by decarbonisation, the Reconstruction Fund will drive investments in new sustainable industries and add value to what we pull out of the ground. This is an important part of reshaping our economy. Critical minerals will be a key economic opportunity for WA and for Australia. It's good to see investments of $1 billion for the Value-Adding in Resources Fund, $50 million for a Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, and $100 million to assist critical minerals producers to progress projects. With lithium exports expected to increase by a factor of more than 10 over the next two years, this is a good space to watch.
On transparency, the budget refers to commitments to improve climate transparency in both the private and public sectors. For the private sector, this will be done by internationally aligned and standardised climate disclosure requirements. For government, fiscal risks associated with climate change will be included in future budgets and intergenerational reports and in the annual climate reporting to parliament. There's obviously a huge amount more to be done to support the transition of our economy to a net-zero economy. The first thing we need to do is remove some of the mixed messages we're sending in the current budget. Fuel tax credits continue to be in the top 20 program expenses and growing by 30 per cent over the next four years. While this has some complexity, we will need to start phasing these fossil fuel subsidies out, rather than growing them, to drive a transition to renewables. Repurposing these credits to support smaller businesses to transition to renewables would be a better way to spend this money over time. Additional investments in gas exploration and infrastructure still appear in the budget and will need to be reduced.
The budget contains some good news for diverse parts of our communities, with some disappointments as well. The 32,000 Curtin residents who are over 65 will be glad to see the $2.5 billion investment in and regulation of aged care, as previously announced. The minor change to the number of hours pensioners can work without affecting their pension may benefit some too. I'm very pleased to see that $1.2 billion has been allocated for practical measures to close the gap and begin preparation for the Voice to Parliament referendum. I look forward to working with my community to build understanding of and support for a First Nations Voice to Parliament, to reset our relationship with First Nations peoples, and to close the gap on intergenerational disadvantage. There remains a significant sum allocated for maintaining detention centres in Nauru as a deterrent. I would prefer to see this go and for Australia to comply with its international legal obligations in relation to asylum seekers. In addition, numerous constituents contact me every week to find out when the government will provide hope for the legacy caseload of more than 30,000 people living in limbo on temporary visas. For students, there are 180,000 fee-free TAFE places in the care sector and digital economy and 20,000 new university places for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. These initiatives start the work needed to rebuild education levels.
At a local level, I'm glad to see the Western Australian Comprehensive Cancer Centre funded. This will add to our medical centre of excellence in Curtin and will increase access to top-quality cancer care. No other specific infrastructure projects in Curtin are identified in the budget. There are a number of local infrastructure projects within Curtin that are worthy of federal funding, and I will continue advocating for them and for greater clarity on future community infrastructure funding processes and criteria, to ensure that funds are allocated fairly. I understand some work is being done on this, so hopefully there will be greater transparency in time for the May budget.
In summary, the budget was generally sensible in the context of challenging economic times. Many of the economic challenges currently being experienced are outside the control of the government. There will be pressure to provide cost-of-living relief, and some short-term financial relief may be justified, but the big challenge ahead will be to maintain a focus on long-term reform, especially on tax and decarbonisation and to resist the pull of populist short-term fixes.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (17:55): I am incredibly proud to be part of an Albanese federal Labor government that not only understands the massive contribution that the Northern Territory makes to our nation but also understands its incredible potential. More than that, it is a government that is putting its money where its mouth is, which the recent budget clearly showed. We are investing in order to bring that potential to life for the good of the Northern Territory, Territorians and our nation.
The Territory has long been referred to as the gateway to Asia or the food bowl of Asia, and it's true. Given our geographic proximity to the Indo-Pacific, it makes sense that our growing capacity, funded by targeted investment in enabling infrastructure in the Northern Territory, is going to assist us. We are an hour's flight from Dili; 2½ hours from Bali; four hours from Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, with more than 270 million people; and also close to Singapore with all its capital. It is closer, in fact, than Darwin is to here, to Sydney, to Melbourne, to Adelaide or to Perth. So it isn't surprising that the Northern Territory, particularly Darwin and my electorate of Solomon, have always looked north.
Every year—and we will again next year—we have an event here at Parliament House called Facing North. That is an invitation for our nation to face north towards the Northern Territory, Darwin and all the potential opportunities to do well there in terms of investing in industry. Those industries are important industries of our future.
Perhaps more than other places in Australia, because we see it every day on the street, we are a global community, a multicultural community. Thirty per cent of Territorians speak a language other than English. We have a large and very vibrant migrant community, which is great because there are so many opportunities in northern Australia.
I was at the Australia Indonesia Business Council national conference in Darwin recently. We heard that Indonesia is Australia's 10th-largest trading partner and the Northern Territory is sixth. That's not just our cattle either. There's so much more we can do to grow this relationship with this massive Asian nation, especially as we look towards the possibilities that a cleaner, greener economy will bring.
As some honourable members may have heard, Sun Cable, which is based in the Northern Territory, is going to be the world's largest solar powered project. It will transmit solar energy via an undersea cable. It will go through the Indonesian archipelago to Singapore, as well as Darwin on the way through, powering the Top End.
Both the Northern Territory and Indonesia are very rich in critical minerals, so there are also opportunities for us to consider merging our supply chains. Indonesia might help refine Australian lithium, for example, and manufacture it into batteries for the global market. However, the Northern Territory is also looking at options where it can value-add with those critical minerals here on Australian soil.
Having strong, powerful relationships with our near neighbours is very important. It breeds enhanced cooperation and mutual understanding. There are many ways that we can help each other.
The Albanese Labor government is working hard to shrink the former government's backlog of more than a million visa applications, employing hundreds and hundreds more staff to get this vital processing of those visas done. We all know we are facing a post-COVID labour and skills shortage and we need to do more to attract skilled migrants to Australia. We need to streamline those visa processes and that is why have announced a review into migration. We know in the Northern Territory that we won't be able to tap the full potential of the Northern Territory unless we have a trained and willing labour force on hand to help us do that vital work. It is important for our regional partners. We are working with them for seasonal workers to come the Northern Territory but we would also very much like to see more permanent migration into the Northern Territory.
There was so much in our government's first budget for the Northern Territory and so much that underlines the understanding that, by investing in infrastructure, skills and our local communities, we will build not only a better Northern Territory but a better Australia, and the regions of the Northern Territory are so important in that aim. Building better regions is exactly what our government is committed to doing. In the budget we saw a whopping $2.5 billion—that's billion with a 'b'—investment in infrastructure in the Territory. That includes not only the much-discussed $1.5 billion for the Middle Arm sustainable development precinct, which will house not only Sun Cable, as I have previously mentioned, but also clean green hydrogen production, ammonia production, which are essential to our pivot towards renewables. I would also like to see the manufacture of solar panels and a data storage centre located in that precinct. We have committed the funding for that enabling infrastructure.
We also know that water security is essential and we are investing $300 million to shore up the Darwin region's water supply. Obviously, water is one of our most precious resources. We need to future-proof our water supply. A lot of people might be thinking, 'Well, the Top End gets a lot of rain during the wet season,' and we do but we also need to capture some of that so that we can fuel our industry with water and make sure that we have secure water supplies to grow the Territory population sustainably. Obviously, future-proofing our water supply as we face a warming planet is going to be important; it's going to make us more resilient for the future.
The Albanese Labor government, our government, will work with the Northern Territory government to return the Manten Dam to service and critical water supply upgrades to the Strauss water treatment plant, the transfer pumps and pipelines. The project will also fund preconstruction activities to further develop the Adelaide River Off-Stream Water Storage project, which is known as AROWS. I took a fly over the AROWS project recently with the infrastructure minister, Catherine King, to show her this incredible natural basin that will greatly increase our water storage capacity by taking a small percentage of the peak flows in the Adelaide River into a basin adjacent to the Adelaide River—so not damming the Adelaide River—and that will greatly increase our water security into the future. These projects will help to unlock opportunities for agricultural, industrial and urban water users, including those at Middle Arm. Green hydrogen needs water, H2O, to produce hydrogen, gas and the other forms, with by-product oxygen when you are producing that hydrogen. When you have a process providing distilled water and oxygen as well as the important gas for the future, that is all good.
The budget also focused on delivering over a billion dollars in roads funding to the Territory, because our government understands that a country with good roads has more secure and resilient supply chains and a safer community. In my electorate of Solomon, that means almost $30 million for the overpass at Tiger Brennan Drive and Berrimah Road, a very dangerous intersection where we've lost many lives. As well as saving lives—I'm sure—this overpass of Berrimah Road over Tiger Brennan Drive will be great for productivity. Productivity advances will come from there no longer being that bottleneck at that intersection so that we can get product straight down to the East Arm Wharf and straight off. About 20,000 Territorians take that commute on Tiger Brennan Drive each day, so, as well as making it easier for trucks to get in and out of the port and making it safer—as I mentioned—it's going to be great for productivity. It's a significant investment, but it will pay real dividends.
We've also committed almost $30 million to new Commonwealth supported university places at Charles Darwin University, which is the Territory's university. That was the largest commitment to any single university in the country. It goes to my point that this federal Labor government under Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, understands that, for our nation to fulfil its potential, we need the Northern Territory to fulfil its potential, and part of that is educating our people, getting a trained, skilled workforce and having that tide lift all boats in the Northern Territory. Honourable members would understand that we have some of the lower socio-economic areas in our country. So we're getting more uni places, but we're also investing in skills and training for Territorians, with over $5 million committed for fee-free TAFE positions, vocational education and training positions, and that's going to be great for our expanding workforce and our expanding industry that needs that skilled workforce.
We're also investing in the Solomon community to make it a safer and happier place for all Territorians and for all our residents. There are a number of measures for our senior Territorians in the budget, and I'm proud of those. We've also got health infrastructure—$11.6 million for a new First Nations health clinic in Palmerston, as it has greatly outgrown its current site. It's a place where culturally appropriate health care will be provided. Not only will that take some of the pressure off the Palmerston Regional Hospital's emergency department but it will keep people well and be pre-emptive in making sure that First Nations Territorians are healthier. That's one of the practical ways in which we can start to close the gap and combat chronic disease.
We've also committed $11 million for a second helicopter for CareFlight for medical evacuations, and that will give the Top End better coverage. We all know that helicopters need maintenance. One can be out on a job, and it will be called to another job because a tourist has gotten into trouble somewhere or someone working out on their pastoral property needs assistance or medical evacuation back to Royal Darwin Hospital or further south, depending on the level of treatment needed. That helicopter will make sure that everyone who either lives in the Top End or is visiting the Top End will have better medical evacuation coverage. It will literally be a lifeline for remote Territorians, and that is an important point. We will also get an urgent care clinic for the Darwin and Palmerston region. That is another measure that will take some of the pressure off the Royal Darwin Hospital's emergency department and make sure that, when people need urgent care, they can get it quickly.
I was proud to secure—in fact, it was one of my highest priorities—$5 million for a youth engagement hub for the northern suburbs. We used to have a youth shack; it has closed now, unfortunately. The owner of the building that the youth shack was housed in sold it to McDonald's so we could have an extra McDonald's. But the silver lining is that I've secured a commitment to make sure that we've got a state-of-the-art youth engagement hub that is co-designed with young people so that we can make sure that more of our young people stay on the right track. Territorians know how important that is. It will support them and wrap around them. It will provide guidance, mentors, a feed and a safe place. I'm really proud of that youth engagement hub commitment. We're not forgetting about older folk either, with $1 million for a Darwin men's shed.
In closing, the thing I'm probably proudest of, which I've committed to for a long time, is a supported hub for veterans in my electorate. I'm proud of the budget.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (18:10): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023. It's a slightly strange time to be addressing our 2022-23 budget in November, but, obviously, it relates to the timing of the federal election. Though it was way back in May, the new government announced that they would update the appropriation bills, effectively, or introduce new ones to the budget that was handed down by the previous government in March. And here we are debating the new government's update to the budget.
In many ways, this budget—as government speakers, more than any others, have pointed out—is effectively just implementing election commitments that the government took to the election. We would absolutely expect them to do that. It's not overly impressive to have a budget that keeps promises that you made when you went to the people and asked for their support, although it doesn't keep all the promises that the government made. There is one related to electricity prices that it spectacularly confirms it will not keep, but I'll come to that in a moment.
This budget was handed down in very dire economic circumstances. None of us in this place want to see the Australian economic environment deteriorate, but, regrettably, inflation in particular is at a very dangerous point. It is at the highest level since the early 1990s. The ABS's most recent figure is 7.3 per cent. Each quarter it is steadily ratcheting up. The other really concerning thing is that, each time the government or the Reserve Bank update their forecasts, they're updating with increases. Each time new forecasts are given, as these things are updated, we're not seeing anything other than a revision up on inflation. That's really frightening because in my adult life we've never had inflation like this. People around my age or younger have never really experienced what inflation does.
It is the most insidious thing in an economy. It's the great destroyer of wealth. It destroys savings. It destroys plans that people have made for their futures, particularly when they're on a fixed income. They might be retired and have provisioned an amount of money that they expected could look after their financial needs into the future. Inflation really takes all that away. I certainly remember that my grandparents retired in the early 1970s just before Gough Whitlam came to power, and the destruction of their savings over the next few years under that government was a story that stayed in our family for decades. It was a story that I heard in the mid to late 1990s about the early 1970s.
One thing that really worries me is whether we're not taking inflation as seriously as we should be. I certainly think that in this budget we're not taking inflation seriously at all. We know what a budget can do to help an inflation challenge. We know what the Reserve Bank is doing from a monetary policy point of view. As we speak, they are increasing interest rates. They're increasing the cost of capital, by which they are attempting to dampen economic activity, make it more expensive to borrow money and therefore create a higher consequence for the decision and the outcome of doing so, in an attempt to take some of the heat out of inflationary pressures.
What the federal government could do is assist from a fiscal point of view. When inflation is running high, what you don't want is the government contributing to it by spending a lot more money than they take in—that is, running significant government deficits—because that is pumping money into the economy by its very nature. If you're taking in a certain amount of money in tax and other revenues, but you're putting more out in expenditure, then you are pushing more money into an economy that's already overheating to the tune of 7.3 per cent, as per the most recent forecasts.
We didn't see the government respond to inflation in this budget, in these appropriation bills, whatsoever. In fact, heartbreakingly, what we also saw is that, despite going to an election in May saying that they would put in place policies that would reduce the average household energy bill by $275 a year, the budget that was handed down by the government two weeks ago confirmed that over the next two years electricity prices will increase by 56 per cent. The next two years are the 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years. If the government are saying they will still achieve that $275 reduction, then I suppose that means in the year 2024-25 they will be cutting electricity prices by something like 60 per cent or more. That would be absolutely remarkable—all strength to their arm—but they're not making that commitment. However, I make the point that, to achieve the solemn promise they made, that's the magnitude of what would have to be achieved against their own forecasts. So it's very frightening to see the confirmation of that. That gas prices, equally, are rising 20 per cent this year and another 20 per cent next year is really frightening. But what is devastating is that in their budget the government confirmed these price increases, and also confirmed they would do absolutely nothing whatsoever about this dramatic increase in burdens on the average family and the average business in our economy.
The budget was an opportunity to say: 'Look, we've got to come clean. We said at the election that we were going to cut electricity prices. Far from it, they're going up by 56 per cent. Because of that, these are all the things we're going to do to support households and businesses to meet this dramatic increase in the burden on them of their electricity prices.' That was a very simple opportunity, and it didn't happen.
Yes, the government implemented a number of their election commitments, except the electricity price one, which I would venture to say was a pretty significant one for the average voter. I think they would feel pretty cheated, pretty dudded. If you were undecided going into that ballot box, you might have said, 'The one thing the Labor Party have said they'll do is cut my power bill by $275.' For a lot of people, their electricity bill is a very significant burden on the household budget. For many businesspeople it is the most significant cost pressure in their expenditure. So I've got no doubt that a lot of people might have been swayed by that commitment, but it turns out that that will not be honoured; that will not be happening.
The people of Australia will mete out there commensurate punishment on this government for that at the next election, but in the meantime we really are here not to delight in the political misfortune of that; we're here to plead with the government to actually do something to help people address this devastating blow that was confirmed in these appropriations bills regarding the burdens that will come onto the household budget. While the Reserve Bank is fighting inflation, they're increasing interest rates, so, as your power bill's going up, your mortgage and the interest rate on your business loan is as well.
We've got no idea what the end in sight is or if the end is in sight on interest rates going up. They've gone up at every meeting of the Reserve Bank since May, including a very unorthodox 50 basis points for a couple of meetings in a row, which dropped back recently to 25 basis points. There's one more meeting before Christmas and one early next year. We don't know what 2023 has in store for the cost of capital in our economy, but, at the same time as the Reserve Bank is increasing interest rates, they're also saying that they expect inflation to be higher than the figure it is at the moment, which is provoking the current increases.
Regrettably, if their predictions come true, there will be more rate rises in the future. Power bills are going up. Mortgages are going up. Of course, as we know, the impact of mortgage increases will be felt by people on fixed-term loans when those loans reach the maturity and they go to refinance. In our economy, the typical average of a fixed loan is about three years, so every week, every month, people are refinancing. Their refinancing is probably not going up by 25 basis points but by three per cent and climbing. That will have a huge impact on the family budget. The people of Australia need this government to recognise just how hard it is to make ends meet and what these challenges are, and the government need to be focused on making decisions and supporting the families and businesses of this country to meet these challenges.
In my own electorate, regrettably, there seems to have been precious little committed insofar as infrastructure and other things are concerned. I am hoping that, with all the reprofiling of infrastructure et cetera that a commitment that was made and confirmed in the pre-election fiscal outlook, a decision of government to fund the Kensington Gardens Reserve clubroom upgrade of $3.6 million is going to be honoured. There is ambiguity around that commitment as it stands, because that program has been ceased, but there is some waffley language about the potential to reprofile projects committed to prior to PFO through other funds. Nonetheless, I will continue to hold the government to account for that one single commitment that was actually something that we delivered. All they need to do is not remove the funding for that and it will see the good people of Sturt get one solitary investment out of this budget. If they take that away, it will be truly low and disgraceful, because these are deserving sports clubs in our community and they deserve that money. It is a merit based decision, and I expect the government to honour that commitment.
In my last few moments, I will conclude by saying whilst we commend and will be supporting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Young ): Order! As there is no quorum present, the Federation Chamber is suspended.
Sitting suspended from 18:22 to 18:25
(Quorum formed)
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:25): Alan Kohler is a very respected economist. He pointed out that the last time a new government brought down its first budget was in 2014 and it was a disaster for all concerned. He pointed out that spending was cut by $14.2 billion over four years and receipts were increased by $3.2 billion—an extraction of $17.4 billion. As a result of that disastrous budget the then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, the member for North Sydney, was diminished. He never recovered. His reputation was in tatters. Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, was gone within a year or two as well. He was rolled by the then member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull. It goes to show that, if you get the budget wrong, things can go very wrong, and it did with that government at that time. In 2013 they got elected. They had no mandate to do anything much—except, of course, saying that there would be no cuts to the ABC, no cuts to the SBS, no cuts to the pension and no cuts generally. But they had a commission of audit and then inflicted a massive amount of cuts on the Australian public. It was a shocking betrayal.
This Albanese government's budget is focused on a better future for Australia and delivering our election promises. There's responsible cost-of-living relief—and I will point that out in my speech. There are some targeted investments to build a stronger and more resilient economy. There are some efforts being put in in terms of budget repair. This responsible fiscal budget provides some economic stability and I think some of the security that we need. It's critical that we hand out a budget that is responsible in really uncertain times. We've a war in Ukraine and energy chaos in this country caused, I might add, by 22 failed policies by those opposite. The NEG didn't even last 12 hours. That's a classic example of the failure of energy policy by those opposite. Those political parties denied in large part climate change and then celebrated when the price on carbon was taken away. We have natural disasters, with climate change on display for all to see.
Rising inflation and rising interest rates have had a big impact on our economy. There's a really strong emphasis in this budget on the cost-of-living package. We're delivering childcare reform to 1.26 million families. Some 8,900 families in my electorate of Blair will benefit. There's an expansion of the Paid Parental Leave scheme to 26 weeks for working parents. We're cutting the costs of medicines in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and slashing the PBS maximum general co-payment to $30 a script. What a difference that will make to average Australian families. We're making housing more affordable by helping more people to buy their home. There's the Housing Australia Future Fund of $10 billion.
There is extra assistance to First Nations women fleeing domestic and family violence. It's part of a $1.7 billion package to assist women and children in particular fleeing domestic and family violence. That's very dear to my heart because I was an accredited specialist in family law and practised in family law and child protection for such a long time before I came to this place in 2007.
The 20,000 affordable homes that we're going to construct under the National Housing Accord are really important. It's critical to get wages moving after nearly a decade when wages flatlined. We heard speeches in the House of Representatives in the last 24 hours by those opposite. They believe in some sort of New Jerusalem or Valhalla and that all of a sudden you can operate as a government and wages will go up magically without any initiative or effort; somehow people will roll over and provide the wage growth that didn't happen in the last 10 years. They deliberately kept wages down. It was a deliberate design feature. That is exactly what former senator Mathias Cormann said. Those were his words. He said it was a 'deliberate design feature' to keep wages low. So, down there in the chamber, in the other place, they are talking about this legislation that will provide assistance to representatives of workers and workers generally—the lowest paid workers in the country and the heroes of the pandemic—and those opposite can't even bring themselves to support that legislation.
Here we are with two great decisions being handed down in the period of time since this government came to power: the decision to give the lowest paid workers—millions of people—a 5.2 per cent increase in the minimum wage and the 15 per cent increase for aged-care workers announced in the last week or so in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. This is a government that supports those increases for low-paid workers, who are mainly in feminised workplaces like child care, aged care and a whole range of areas like that. Those opposite did nothing about that in nearly a decade in office, and they can't even bring themselves to support legislation that will help women and low-paid workers in those areas who really need help. It's critical that we get wages moving. There wasn't a budget paper in the last nine years under the coalition where the wage outcome wasn't lower than the budget papers stated. The level of wage wealth—if I can put it like that—compared to profit wealth in the share of GDP has never been lower in this country. So we've got to get wages moving. It's critical, particularly in circumstances where inflation is close to eight per cent.
As part of this budget, we're investing in a whole range of things that will help my electorate. In particular, TAFE Queensland South West will benefit enormously from the hundreds of thousands of extra fee-free places. That will help working-class kids and battling communities in suburbs like Ripley Valley, Springfield, Bundamba, Ebbw Vale, East Ipswich, Basin Pocket and Booval in my electorate get access to TAFE places. There are 20,000 additional university places for disadvantaged Australians. That will help USQ, Springfield USQ and Ipswich USQ. That will be really critical. They do great work, and they're much-loved institutions in my electorate.
There is also the Powering Australia plan to invest in cleaner and cheaper energy and transmission networks. I am really strongly of the view that we need community batteries in my electorate in Ipswich, and I'm looking forward to lobbying and have already started lobbying the responsible minister for that. It's absolutely critical. There is also a $120 billion investment in nation-building infrastructure, and there are a number of road projects in my electorate, including the final stage of the Ipswich Motorway. The Queensland government wanted the money, so we gave them $12.5 million in the budget for planning works for the final stage from the Oxley roundabout towards the Centenary interchange. It's absolutely crucial. Each day, 100,000 vehicles go through that part of the Ipswich Motorway between Ipswich and Brisbane, and that money is absolutely vital.
There are some responsible budget improvements. There's some stopping of Liberal Party waste, there's some delivering of infrastructure projects in a more responsible timeline, there's some restraining of government expenditure, there's some improvement in terms of the quality of spend in the budget and there's some improvement in the integrity and fairness of the tax system, clamping down on multinational tax evasion. It's what the Australian public wanted going forward.
There is also an expansion of the NBN, particularly mobile coverage, which has been the bane of my existence in my time in parliament here. I struggled with the former government to get better connectivity and mobile phone coverage in country towns in the Brisbane Valley and places like Linville, Moore, Esk, Coominya and Toogoolawah and also in rural Ipswich. So I really appreciate the fact that we put hundreds of millions of dollars in this area to support the expansion of mobile phone coverage, and also farm connectivity. It's so important for the primary producers in my electorate.
There is some support also for veterans, which is so critical. I'm looking forward to the veterans hub in the Ipswich and Springfield area. I've been working on that project with the member for Oxley, and I think that's absolutely vital. I thank the RSLs for what they do—the Ipswich Railway sub-branch and the Ipswich sub-branch of the RSL. I will be at the Ipswich sub-branch on Friday for Remembrance Day, and my staff and volunteers will be at other places like Springfield and Pine Mountain. I want to honour and thank the veterans for what they do. I want to thank all the people who work at the RAAF base at Amberley. They really make our community a much stronger and better place in which to live. I'm really pleased that we've got bipartisan support for the expansion of the RAAF base at Amberley and what we've done. This is so important.
There are a number of important projects in my electorate that I'm looking forward to, which are in the budget. There's the $12.5 million for Cytiva for the Springfield BioPark project. That will advance medical manufacturing. When that biopark is up and running and Cytiva is up there we're looking at about a thousand jobs in that region. That's really important.
In Springfield we've provided the funding that Ipswich City Council wants for the next stage of the business case for the Ipswich to Springfield rail line, $3.4 million, as part of the city deal. We're honouring that. There's funding in the budget for a Medicare urgent care clinic. There's one in Ipswich to take the pressure off the Ipswich Hospital emergency department by providing care from a doctor or nurse for things like strains, sprains, broken bones, stitches, wound care and minor conditions.
I'm also deeply appreciative of Simone Jackson, the CEO of Kambu Health. They do a great job in my electorate helping First Nations people. There's $2.5 million to support our local Indigenous community to relocate the family and children's centre, which I got $1 million for some years ago. They're going to relocate that out to Silkstone and expand the Kambu clinic in Ipswich with more treatment rooms and better administration. That will expand 10,000 to 12,000 patients' options in Kambu in Ipswich.
There's more money for flood recovery and resilience projects. There's $4 million to upgrade the showgrounds in Ipswich. Of that $4 million, $1.5 million is to improve amenities for the local emergency relief centre. I'm looking forward to working—and I am working—towards a better outcome for the people in that little part of Brisbane in my electorate around Karana Downs and Mount Crosby, who, I think, get cut off all the time and get forgotten by the Brisbane City Council. They're cut off from Ipswich, Colleges Crossing and Kholo. If the road goes under, they're cut off with Ugly Gully as they go towards Brisbane. They call themselves the Crosby island. We're looking at some funding there under the Disaster Ready Fund, the $200 million we're putting aside every year. I'm looking forward to working with the local community to get money towards that.
There's some money that I think is really critical for our local area. There are small grants like the money we got for the toy library in multicultural Ipswich. Redbank Plains is the fastest-growing suburb in Ipswich. It really is growing. There are more people living in Redbank Plains than in the city of Maryborough in Queensland. There's a huge number of people. It's really growing quickly. New schools are going in there, and that money is important.
The Indian community do a fantastic job. In the eastern suburbs of Ipswich, we're seeing a very large Indigenous community grow and an Indian community grow. We have a very strong presence of both Indigenous and Indian communities across Ipswich, particularly in the eastern suburbs, where the Indian community is so large. We've got $3.5 million for India House, which is a project that I want to thank Jim Varghese and a lot of people for. Maha Sinnathamby has been behind it as well. We have organisations in the Ipswich community and across South-East Queensland who do a fantastic job in helping the Indian community.
We have nearly 60,000 people in the Indian community living in South-East Queensland. I want to praise and thank the Federation of Indian Communities of Queensland, the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin, or GOPIO, the Australia India Business Council and, particularly, the Australia India Community Charitable Trust, who have lobbied me very hard.
We recognise the active participation of the Indian community, and I've been to a number of Diwali events, such as one at the BAPS temple in Logan. There are about 150 families from my area worshipping at that temple in Logan, and I go there regularly. I've been to a number of Diwali events in Brisbane, and I was very pleased to launch a new charitable trust in Indooroopilly last Saturday evening. I thank them for the work they do.
India House will be a place to meet and a place for the business community to get together, but there will also be some social and community assistance. One thing they're very keen on doing is supporting women and children and those fleeing domestic and family violence. I've had some very extensive discussions with the Indian communities and some of those organisations I referred to earlier. I want to thank them for the work they do. So whether it's the Indigenous community in Ipswich, in Springfield, or the Indian community, I'll be there for them. This budget provides assistance, across a range of projects, that fulfils Labor's commitment to those various communities, but to other communities as well.
So I'm very pleased to support this appropriations legislation. It fulfils just so many of the commitments I made during the course of this campaign. And I thank the Treasurer, my friend the member for Rankin, for the work he does.
Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (18:40): Budgets represent difficult decisions for governments. They're hard decisions. There are so many worthy projects brought to the Treasurer from all members of parliament and across society. It's that balance of: 'What are the projects to fund, and what are the projects not to do?' Those are some of the difficult challenges of a budget.
But it's not just about the individual projects. It's also about setting this country up for the future. I want to talk about how this budget does that, in some ways, extremely well, but then how it leaves on the table a number of opportunities where we need to take action right now.
Let me firstly talk to the positive aspects of the budget, because, as I said, there are many positive things. I come from Wentworth in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. I remember, very vividly, standing in Paddington at Five Ways one day, talking to different people about what was important to them, and a woman came up to me and said: 'Child care is my most important issue.' Actually, she walked past me and said, 'I'm not sure I want to talk,' and then she came back and said, 'No, I do want to tell you something,' and she told me: 'Child care is the most important issue for me. It was difficult to get child care. It was really expensive. I decided not to. I took more time off than I would have. And now, on reflection, I wish I hadn't. I didn't have the choices that I wish I'd had.' And that is why, as I've said previously, the investment in child care that this government has made is absolutely essential—and particularly to communities like Wentworth, where we have incredibly well-educated women who want to contribute to the world. But we need to give them a chance to do that, and child care is absolutely crucial.
As we're speaking about women, I also want to talk about parental leave. This is one of the areas that wasn't necessarily expected in the budget but was incredibly welcome. I'm so excited that we've increased paid parental leave and, most crucially, that we're going to advocate for part of that to be 'use it or lose it' for the second parent, who is, typically, a man. Again, I stood in Wentworth partly because I wanted to see a shift in the gender equity in this country and in this parliament, and I wanted to enable women to succeed. I think that paid parental leave, where there's an emphasis on parents sharing the caring, could have an enormous positive cultural impact on our country, in terms of economic opportunities for women. But it's also for men—to build greater bonds with their children, and improve mental health, as has been shown, and be good for child development. So I was very excited to see that in the budget.
Again, we're still speaking about women, so let me talk about domestic violence. One of the issues that many people have come to talk to me about is domestic violence. I was shocked, when I met the local commander for the police and asked: 'What do you spend your time on?' and he said: 'Fifty per cent of our time is spent on domestic violence.' In an area like Wentworth—which people assume is wealthy and so perhaps doesn't have the scourge of domestic violence—50 per cent of the time of the police is spent on domestic violence. That is why it's absolutely crucial that there was that investment in those services, and I hope very much that wonderful services like Bondi Cottage get support through that increased investment in services and in domestic violence support.
There are other communities of mine that I think are really important. Let me talk about the young and the old. One of the hardest things, I think—being someone probably in the middle of age—is to look at the generations coming behind you and wonder: 'Are they going to actually have a worse time than we are?' And, when I look at something like housing, I think: 'You know what? They absolutely are,' because the tables have turned on housing. In Wentworth, so many parents and grandparents came to me and said: 'Our children will never be able to buy near us. Our children are working hard. They're educated. They're young couples with two jobs, and they will never be able to buy a house.' And that's borne out by the statistics: it takes twice as long to save up for a house in this country than it did 20 or so years ago. The amount of time and the percentage of income it takes to pay for a house is even more. It is absolutely vital that the government said it's going to look at housing supply, because this is an issue of housing supply. Fundamentally, Australia has 400 dwellings per thousand people. If we had the same as the OECD, we'd have another two million houses. Two million dwellings is possibly what this country needs to grow. The government haven't stood up for that, but they did put a line in the sand and say, 'We're going to try to get a million dwellings built in this country.' I applaud them for that effort and I applaud them for working with the states and local governments on this, because this is a national problem. So these are some of the areas that I think have been really positively addressed in the budget.
I'll speak briefly also to aged care, which is an investment that so many my community really value, and, finally, I'll speak to renewable energy. Wentworth has stood up and said: 'We care about the climate. We care about the environment.' That's why people live in Wentworth—for its beautiful environment, for its beautiful beaches. They care about the natural world and they want to preserve that for their children. My community is incredibly excited that there's such investment in the clean energy transformation that this country needs to go through, and I congratulate the government on those investments.
However, there are areas within the budget which are concerning to me, and one of those is absolutely energy. For a long time we have been denying that we need to have a transformation of our energy system. I think the government has acknowledged that we do need to transform our energy systems, but you still see in the budget investment in fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies that fly in the face of the clean energy revolution that we all know we need to go through. I'd like to highlight the $7 billion of fuel tax credits that were in the budget—$7 billion. It's among the top 20 budget expenditure items, and that was spent on subsidising fossil fuels and the fuel tax credits. There was also a $1.5 billion investment in the Middle Arm precinct, which is effectively investment in gas. My community appreciates the difficulties and challenges of having a responsible budget, but that sort of money—$7 billion in fuel tax credits and $1.5 billion in the Middle Arm precinct—flies in the face of what my community expects in terms of the clean energy revolution.
Another key issue: my community expect a government that governs well. They're really supportive of the investment in the budget for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. However, they do not like to see money spent where there is not a strong economic case for its justification. I think the $2.2 billion of investment in Victoria's Suburban Rail Loop, without it being signed off by the independent assessor, Infrastructure Australia, or approved under the National Land Transport Act, disappoints my community. We want money that stacks up in the business cases. We want infrastructure that is top priority for the country and that isn't about doing favours for other members or other parts of the country. It has to be an investment that stacks up for every person in this country, because, frankly, it's paid for by every person in this country. That is what my community expects. We do expect money to be spent on the top priority projects that build this country. We don't like to see cash splashed around irresponsibly.
I'd like to move on to the two major missed opportunities of this budget. The first is energy prices. The budget acknowledges that household and business energy prices will be going up by around 50 per cent. That is a huge burden on the community and on business. At the same time we are seeing gas and coal companies make superprofits because of the war in Ukraine and the consequential tightening of energy supply around the world. As I keep on saying, this is a fossil fuel crisis. This is not a clean energy crisis, as some people would paint it. The sun hasn't got more expensive. The wind isn't more expensive. This is about coal and gas being more expensive because of a foreign war and then Australians being exposed to that rather than being the beneficiaries of our enormous natural resources.
I come from business. I am actually very loath to try and change investments or change circumstances for businesses who are making investments and expect to get their money back and make profit. I support that a hundred per cent. But, when the profit is coming out of a war, I don't think that argument passes the pub test. That's really what I've been saying for the last four months. So I am pleased that the government seems to be taking this issue seriously, but I wish that they had taken that issue seriously enough to make it something that actually went into the budget rather than something that we're still waiting for.
The last piece that I think is important to address in the budget is structural deficits. We have, at this stage, structural deficits as far as the eye can see. For the next 10 years, we're looking at a two per cent structural deficit broadly across the economy. When we come back to intergenerational fairness, that is not fair on our future generations. We are building up debt for them. I think of a young person today saying: 'I can't afford to buy a house. I'm concerned about climate change and the impact that it is going to have on me and my children and our quality of life. And the country is building up a debt that I'm going to have to pay off later on.' I don't think that we are being fair to the generation underneath us by not addressing this. So what I wanted to see in this budget was an acknowledgement that we need to deal with the structural deficit and we need to work out how to truly drive productivity in this economy, and also how to manage to live within our means and make sure that we actually can pay for the things that we are demanding.
I would have liked to see the government make some hard choices in spending. I think the government could have looked at some of the investments that we have made which are not making us any better and not getting the outcomes we need and said: 'Did we need to spend that money? Could we spend that money better and get different outcomes?' I have been urging the government and will continue to urge the government to look at the tax system, because the tax system, in the words of many economists and businesspeople, is broken. It is not serving our productivity. It can be, in many cases, a drag on the economy and a drag on innovation. It is a drag on things like housing. It actually stops fluid housing movement. Consider things like stamp duty; while it is a state tax, it is something that really needs federal government support to be able to be addressed. I would have loved to see the government acknowledge this and say, 'We're going to have a tax review,' but they didn't, so I'm going to continue to drive this in the parliament. We need to see money better spent, and we also need to make sure that we know how to live within our means and we have a tax system that drives productivity and growth across the country and literally grows the pie.
I commend the government for what is really good in this budget, but I want to acknowledge that there are areas where my community expects more. That is in terms of not subsidising fossil fuels; making the hard decisions to not support projects that are politically expedient but don't stack up under infrastructure cost-benefit analysis; dealing with the hard choices in terms of energy prices; and, finally, recognising that a structural deficit as far as the eye can see is not tenable for future generations. We must deal with it, and we must deal with it in a way that drives productivity and grows the pie for other generations.
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (18:53): I proudly rise to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, representing a sensible and realistic path for Australia's economic future. The bill delivers on the key promises that Labor took to the election—important commitments like cheaper child care, cheaper medications and investment in infrastructure.
We are moving quickly; we have done more in office over the last five months than the other mob could have ever dreamed of. Maybe that's why the Australian people turned to us in May. They wanted change, and they wanted the Albanese Labor government to do that. While delivering some of the key election promises that provide large social impact, this budget puts the health of the economy at the centre of, at the heart of, what we're doing. After years of cuts and pork barrelling from those on the other side of the chamber, it fixes many of their failings and responds to the global and national challenges that we face today.
I also proudly rise to support the appropriations bill as it gives the electorate of McEwen much-needed funding after being neglected for nearly a decade, a fact that was noted by the Liberal candidate at the last election, who openly said that they hadn't been delivering in the area for nine years. The Albanese government has shown its commitment to regional infrastructure and development in this budget, which is going to make a huge impact for our communities. We are delivering on all of the promises that I made to the people of McEwen throughout the campaign. We have listened and are responding to the conversations that we had throughout the electorate during the campaign, and we are delivering on those promises.
Overall, nearly $200 million will be invested in the electorate of McEwen. This includes investments like $15 million to build the much-needed stage 2 of the Macedon Ranges Regional Sports Precinct, something that was sorely overlooked for so long, making way for the coalition's pet projects in their own seats. This funding will invest in our local sporting community and have a huge impact on opportunities for members of our community. For nine years the coalition neglected to do that. In fact, they made an announcement literally only 10 minutes before the Prime Minister called the election. It makes you wonder about their genuineness, doesn't it?
There is $11 million allocated to fixing our roads, making our region safer and more accessible. Most people in the region will tell you the importance of this investment as we see the potholes and road degradation every day, particularly from the weather events that have started. People should recognise that the potholes we face on our roads are caused a lot by weather. The shortage of infrastructure spending in Victoria has meant that the Victorian government has had to stretch its dollars further. Our government is committed to getting regional roads in better condition for us to have safer travel. The Camerons Lane Interchange will get $150 million to ease pressure on the roads, particularly in and around Beveridge, and allow people to get to and from work more quickly every day. It also opens up huge opportunities for our suburbs in terms of business and jobs.
Furthermore, the investment in other infrastructure projects, including the over $2 billion in the suburban rail loop will be a huge economic investment and productivity booster for the economy, including for the people of McEwen. This massive project will provide job opportunities for our tradies during the building of the loop and easier access to services and institutions, including hospitals, when it's complete. After years of neglect from the previous government, we are finally getting the investment that our community deserves. The Albanese government is providing what matters to the people of McEwen.
The appropriation bill provides for regional Australia. It includes 760 initiatives to boost regional communities and industries across our nation. That is $9.6 billion committed to delivering the infrastructure promises we made, with local government and communities being at the forefront of the investments. We are focusing on sustainable growth in the regions and ensuring that essential services are up to scratch to provide for a growing regional population. These essential services include investing in providing $22.6 million for 29,000 additional in-training support places for apprentices in regional, rural and remote areas on top of our already promised fee-free TAFE places. We are looking at huge programs that will upskill our regions and allow us to have more capacity for infrastructure projects that will develop regional Australia in the future and support our communities.
The Albanese government is investing in regional infrastructure because we know the hard work of the people in our regions translates directly to the health of the Australian economy. With regional industries such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining making up an extraordinary 72 per cent of Australia's merchandise exports, we must invest in the regions. You can see our commitment to the regions in the passing of legislation to establish the High Speed Rail Authority. Our government is looking past politics and, instead, making sure all regional communities are accounted for and getting the support that they need.
I commend the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for her commitment to investing in jobs and projects that can help Australia transition to net zero through the $1.9 billion to the Powering the Regions Fund. The fund will create jobs and cut emissions and, through the National Reconstruction Fund, will provide the support to ensure that regional Australia can harness the economic opportunities from clean energy manufacturing. But we won't stop there. We are investing in huge manufacturing projects to boost regional economies. Unlike those on that side of the chamber, we are making sure regional Australia is not getting left behind. In fact, the National Reconstruction Fund will help support regional committees to expand and transform Australia's industries.
This budget shows we are here for regional Australians. Not only that, but Labor is delivering on our promises to improve the connectivity and communications infrastructure across our great nation. Communications are critical in McEwen. Through this budget we are fixing the holes that the last mob left in the national coverage where people need it—in areas affected by floods, fires and storms. We are fixing the connectivity issues we had Gisborne south and Woodend in our $1.5 million Mobile Black Spot Program. This has been a huge concern for our communities. It was brought up multiple times during our campaign, which is why I am delighted to stand and speak on what we are doing in this budget. We are delivering and fixing the holes left by the previous government.
We know that the Black Spot Program had three major concerns—major transport, rural and regional, and areas of high possibility for natural disasters. We ticked all those boxes but, for political reasons, we could not get support from the previous government. In our first budget, this government has delivered more than the previous government delivered in nine years. We are committed to increasing connectivity, bridging the digital divide and improving mobile coverage.
The Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia will see $1.1 billion dollars delivered to rural and regional communications infrastructure. I am very happy to acknowledge the hard work of the Minister for Communications in making sure regional Australians are looked after in this allocation of funding. Another $400 million will go to expanding regional mobile coverage. Improving the resilience of communications systems will help not only the average Australian but also the businesses in rural Australia, and will help communications infrastructure to work in times of high pressure such as in emergencies.
This budget is future proofing and making sure communications programs are disaster resilient. Some 660,000 premises in regional Australia will receive additional fibre-to-the-node, allowing more workers and more businesses, small and large, to base themselves in the regions. We are committed to making sure every Australian, like our constituents in McEwen, is on an equal footing and has the services they need to go about their daily lives.
But funding in regional Australia doesn't stop there. I am pleased to see the passing of the emergency response bill. With the support for the appropriations bill, the Albanese Labor government is not only committing to responding to recent flooding events across Australia but—importantly—is also looking at ways to mitigate damage in the future. We will be distributing from our resilience fund billions of dollars over the course of the next 10 years to ensure that we are improving infrastructure to be more natural disaster resilient. This means $200 million a year in infrastructure funding going to natural disaster resilience alone. It will make our community of McEwen safer. This is not a bandaid fix but rather a plan to ensure the future of all of our communities.
Once again, it is our government showing up for Australians. As I have said many times in this place, the positive effects will be felt through our electorate. Whether it is the immediate effects of this work being felt in places like Darraweit Guim, where they have gone through the recent floods, or programs like the one in Nillumbik shire that is future proofing our communities, we are acting quickly and responding to the increasing needs of emergency disaster management that the other lot failed to deliver in almost a decade. Despite witnessing the rising frequency and intensity of these disasters, the former government did nothing apart from have a big fund that did nothing but accrue interest. Sure, they made promises and allocated funding but, like everything else, there was a vast difference between announcement and delivery. They were too busy grandstanding and trying to get handshakes from doing the bare minimum. This Labor government will change that and will invest in local communities to make them more disaster resilient and safer to be in. This government is doing more than just delivering for regional Australians. A big part of our budget is implementing the cost-of-living measures in a time of economic hardship. Good examples are that through our legislation that's passed there will be cheaper child care and a reduction in the cost of medicines. Through cheaper child care we are supporting 1.26 million more families by making it cheaper for them to access early childhood education services. For our community that translates to over 6,000 families getting the relief they need. Our other cost-of-living measures include our work reducing the cost of essential medicines on the PBS. After years of neglect to our health system, our government is working hard to fill the gaps left behind by the Liberal and National parties, with over $104 billion being spent on health. The maximum co-payment for medicines will drop from $42.50 to $30 from 1 January 2023, as we promised at the last election. This is just another way that Labor is responsibly cutting in order to support the cost of living.
The last thing I want to talk about regarding these appropriation bills is the support to veterans they provide. I'm proud to be supporting a budget that finally looks after the servicewomen and men who have given so much to our country. I'm passionate about the support for veterans. It is something that is incredibly close and important to me and our community. This budget measure and upcoming legislation are built from the recommendations of the royal commission.
The appropriation bills provide the funding for additional staff to go through the backlog of over 40,000 compensation claims that the last government left hanging. It's not a good act to have this neglect and to have left so many veterans and families without the support they needed, which is why our government is moving quickly to amend this. We are providing the funding for 500 additional staff to go through these claims and support DVA, after years of the last government saying they care about ex-servicemen but actually doing nothing to support them.
I spoke earlier today in this place of one simple case where Len had his claim in for a thousand days—not to actually be processed but just to get assessed. Through talking to Minister Keogh and making that change that we have with the new minister, not only was his claim assessed but it was delivered in 24 hours using the same information that he'd provided three years ago.
So this is a budget that is actually providing relief that is needed, not only to those who work in the sector but also to the very people who have honourably served our country. With that said, I'm proud to support the appropriation bills. It is delivering on our election commitments and is finally, after nine long years, a budget that serves the people of McEwen.
Mrs MARINO (Forrest) (19:07): As members know, I have done a lot in the online safety space and the cybersafety space for children in schools and for the community more broadly. So I am quite concerned that in the budget I saw Labor commit just $6 million to online safety in schools when, prior to the election, we committed $23 million to an esafety schools program. That was a wonderful package, a trusted esafety program for schools and a grants program for third-party providers, giving every school in Australia materials to raise awareness of the services provided by the fantastic eSafety Commissioner—the first in the world—that we set up while we were in government so that parents, teachers and students know where to turn for help.
We were going to put additional resources into: training for schoolchildren on emerging online safety and mental health issues, particularly the body language concerns that I hear so much about in the sessions that I do; in-person teacher training to help educators support students and become esafety teacher champions in schools; delivery of the safety animal series, building on the long-term success of the Healthy Harold model for five- to eight-year-olds; and providing every school in Australia access to a free expanded version of the eSafety Commissioner's successful online eSafety Toolkit. We also committed to parental control software; an additional $10 million for the eSafety Commissioner to deliver improved services and supports for victims; $2 million for the Online Safety Grants program for women and girls in CALD communities; legislated the social media antitrolling laws to hold social media companies to account; and legislated the Online Privacy Bill. They were all part of what we were planning. That was a $23 million package.
We do know how important the role and the work of the eSafety Commissioner is. For the first time, on the back of our legislation, the commissioner has been able to issue legal notices against big technology firms requiring them to disclose what they are doing to find and report child sex material being shared on their platforms. This was made possible by our Online Safety Act 2021, a signature reform of the former coalition federal government. This is so important. The eSafety Commissioner has noted that some of the most harmful material online today involves the sexual exploitation of children and, frighteningly, this activity is no longer confined to hidden corners of the dark web but is prevalent on the mainstream platforms that we and our children use every day. That is absolutely true. The eSafety Commissioner reported that the commission in Australia had handled over 61,000 complaints since 2015, the majority comprising child sexual exploitation material. The budget needs to respond to that and to provide what is needed for our young people online. I was significantly concerned after the group of young people recently told me about the videos that are being shared and available for very young children through Omegle. I thank them for their frankness with me.
I was also concerned to see in the budget the cuts for rural and regional infrastructure. For those of us who don't live in cities, they were nation-building projects and vital to production in rural and regional Australia. The regions produce the wealth in this country. Mining and agricultural exports have underpinned and supported Australians, whether it was through the Global Financial Crisis, through COVID or through what we are currently facing. These major rural and regional projects for roads, rail, bridges and ports are critical.
We will see further impacts with the $24 billion in the budget to be spent through on renewables and on the 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 target. We do know that under a particular scenario there will be 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines and 22,500 solar panels needed to 2030. That is 60 million solar panels and 47 megawatt wind turbines needed to be built every month. That really is going to be a critical issue in rural and regional Australia. The social licence is going to be such an issue in our part of the world.
I read an article that said for solar and wind to deliver the global demand for green hydrogen by 2050, 25 per cent of Australia's total land mass will be covered. When you add to that Labor's 30 per cent of land mass to be locked up for threatened species, together, that would be 50 per cent of Australia's land mass. Department officials confirmed that fulfilling that by 2030 will involve locking up millions of additional hectares. So what does this mean for rural and regional areas, for our farmers and graziers? We are yet to hear any of that from Labor. When we add to that the 30 per cent cut to methane by 2030, I suspect very strongly this will become a tax either directly or indirectly. The government is signing up for this and has no idea how it is going to be done. Labor stood by the coalition to not signing up previously. Well, this will have a major impact on rural and regional areas.
We have heard talk about seaweed and other additives. We are a long way from that. We have 1.5 million dairy cattle in Australia, one million cattle in feedlot, and the cost of wild harvest for that would be huge. You are talking about 365,000 tonnes of dried seaweed a year for that, according to Trevor Whittington in the article in Western Australia. Perhaps, if it is produced in-ocean, it will require 18,250 hectares of ocean water.
This policy decision also ignores the feral animals that we see so many of in Australia—pigs, goats, horses, deer, kangaroos and so on. I am really concerned about that approach and the impact on rural, regional and remote parts of Australia.
Again, rural and regional regions are the wealth producers in this country and enable us to meet our obligations. They are the regions that provide the funding for health, the NDIS, pensions and growth projects. I've seen some wonderful projects through the BBRF, despite what those opposite say. I saw an aged-care facility in my part of the world funded through the BBRF. What a great use of taxpayers' money that was. We saw the Ngilgi Cave upgrade. The South West was in line for support under our Regional Accelerator Program, given it's one of the fastest growing and most vibrant electorates in Australia. That was to support businesses and universities. It was for specific infrastructure that is needed to grow the region further.
We also introduced the very popular local roads and community infrastructure grants program. That has been enormously successful and very welcome by local governments. We saw some cuts from the mobile blackspot program, which concerns me. I look at some of the spending that has been really attacked by those on the opposite side. There is the Bunbury outer ring road, which we funded, and the Bussell Highway—that desperately needed a dual carriageway and which it got under our government. I've spoken about local roads and the Roads to Recovery Program. That is so important. There is the blackspot program for roads as well as communications. We introduced the fabulous mobile blackspot tower program, the Bridges Renewal Program, the Stronger Communities Program, and the financial assistance grants programs. They were all there.
I was very proud, in our time in government, to be part of the first ever national action plan for endometriosis. We had committed $58 million more to this in the last budget to roll out pelvic pain clinics. And then there is what we've done with the new university departments of rural health—there is one in ECU in Bunbury—to will help train the wonderful people we're going to need in the health and aged-care sector.
We were funding adult Head to Health centres, and there was one for my part of the world. We were expanding headspace. We had put so many resources into headspace. They are so important in rural and regional areas.
Then there are the cost-of-living issues that affect all Australians at the moment. That's backed up with changes to the ag visas. We need action on the labour shortages that we see in rural and regional areas. The ag visa was part of that. I'm concerned particularly, as I have articulated in other speeches, about the changes to industrial relations and what it will do to our ports in particular. There is the potential of industrial action on construction sites or our ports. This will seriously affect food and perishables getting in and out of our ports, and these are a lot of our exports and imports, which are critical to what we do in rural and regional areas.
I'm also supportive of the Collie to the Coast irrigation scheme and the critical desalination pumping and piping project in our south-west. This is irrigation and fit-for-purpose water.
I understand there is a speaker to follow me. I understand there are some remarks that the speaker after me wants to make, so I will complete my remarks at this point.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Thank you for that courtesy. I give the call to the member for Paterson.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (19:19): I thank the member for Forrest for her consideration. Thank you for that. I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023.
The last 10 years have been a particularly challenging time for many Australians. It has become harder to rent, certainly harder to buy a house, and the cost of living has skyrocketed, with food and fuel at all time highs. The current CPI sits at 10.1 per cent for the 12 months to July 2022. That puts the cost of living at a crisis level. What does that mean in real terms? The current CPI sits at 10.1 per cent. What makes that a crisis? I'll tell you what I think makes it a crisis. It is a crisis when it is virtually impossible to find somewhere to call home, you can't find a place to rent, the dream of owning your own home truly has become a nightmare, let alone trying to live remotely near where you might work, particularly if you're in some of those very congested areas around our big cities.
But if you live in a regional centre, like the one I represent in the seat of Paterson, one of the things that have made it extraordinarily difficult for people is that we have had such a change in the population of our regions. We've warmly embraced that change. We've welcomed people to our regions. In fact, parts of my seat have recently become referred to as the 'nappy belt' because people who left Sydney, particularly during COVID, have come to the Hunter. We're one of the fastest growing regions in New South Wales. That means that the price of housing has skyrocketed and the price of rents has skyrocketed. To give you some idea of what that means in real terms, I went to visit Carrie's Place, which is a service for victims of domestic violence and for people who are experiencing real stress in trying to find a home. It's for women. It has now resorted to handing out tents and sleeping bags. Can you think of anything worse in Australia in 2022 than that a women's crisis centre has lost all hope of trying to assist women? The thought of trying to get them into emergency accommodation, of having affordable homes for them to rent, is so far down the track that it has resorted to having tents that people can pitch in parks, or sometimes in the backyards of family or friends, or to having sleeping bags for couch surfing. Seriously, where are we as a sophisticated First World nation when that is the answer for people? It is clearly not good enough.
We've all made comments about paying $11 or $12 for an iceberg lettuce, especially during floods and when droughts were crippling Australian agriculture, but the price of groceries has become so high that it is incredibly difficult. In fact, we've become the eighth most expensive place on the planet to buy groceries. It's just not acceptable. Food security is something that we don't often think about in Australia. It's not like in some nations around the world where you really do have to wonder where that next meal will come from. But for many Australians that is the case.
My thinking on this is that we have to do better. So I couldn't be prouder to support the most recent budget—the financial road map, if you like—that was presented by the Treasurer, because it gives Australians a sense of having a government that has not only an eye to their future but a very real eye to the present. We are actually working on increasing real wages. We know that wages have gone nowhere in the last 10 years, juxtaposed by the facts I've just given about rentals and housing going through the roof. We know that housing is the primary impost on a family budget. So we have to be able to help Australians get somewhere to live and have shelter. It's a primary need for all human beings to have a safe and secure place to lay their head at night and to raise a family. Even those people who are able to afford a family home and have a mortgage—and good on you for that—need us to make it less stressful for them. They are going to work every day. They should be able to earn a decent wage.
At this pivotal time in Australia's history, I'm actually so pleased that the last decade has passed us by and we can really embrace the change that will come under the Albanese government, where people who work hard will receive better wages for it. They will have a hope of being able to have a home to call their own, whether they rent it or are able to buy it. They will have hope for their children in the future to have a good education, whether that's through properly funded public education or the choice of being able to afford private education. They will have a good and positive outlook for having those children educated in tertiary education, whether that means getting an apprenticeship, going to TAFE or going on to university. These are the things that people think about every day. They're the hopes and dreams. Sometimes that word 'aspiration' is cast about.
In talking to people across my seat for the last six years, people really do want that Australian belief of a fair go. They want a good job. They want to be able to go to work. They want to afford to pay their way. They're more than happy to pay their way, but they want to know that they're being rewarded or at least acknowledged for having a go. That's why I am so proud that we've been able to put forward a budget that gives people that road map for the future. It says that there is hope that you will earn a decent day's wage for a decent day's work. There is a hope that you can afford to have a home. There is a hope that, if you have children, they can be well educated, and, if you don't, that those children who are being well educated might care for you in your dotage.
With a little bit of good health management, some amazing health care, perhaps some good luck and, if you believe it, divine intervention, we all hope to live to a ripe old age. But we've seen aged care in Australia go so far back in the last 10 years that I'm sure many people are fearful of what would happen to them if they needed to be in aged care. When you have a royal commission titled Neglect, I think it's so important that we put more resources into aged care. I'm particularly proud of what the Prime Minister has said in this regard. We are going to see increased investment in aged care. Better food is a basic tenet of having someone in aged care. We're going to have better nutrition for our nursing homes. We're going to have nurses in nursing homes. We're really working hard to build a better framework for people as they age, whether they do it in their own homes or in an aged-care facility.
I know that we're rapidly running out of time in this debate tonight, but the other point I wanted to touch on is the economy. There's been a lot made of cheaper child care. I know that that's the phrase that has been coined on this, and we all talk about it as 'child care', but, really, it's early education. We're wanting to make it more affordable. I couldn't be a teacher or a preschool educator for love nor money; I just don't have the patience, though I love children. Those people do an extraordinary job and they're setting up our young people for the future. I personally want to thank all of those people who work in early education in my home town and the seat of Paterson because they do such an extraordinary job. We're relying on those people. They need to be paid better. They need better resources.
Most importantly, it is extraordinarily important that the parents who entrust their children to those places are able to go to work and contribute to our economy. I want to thank those parents for doing that. It is a big deal to put your little one into a place like that and think: 'Right, now I'm going to go to work. I want to be able to trust that they're going to, firstly, be well cared for and, secondly, learn something.' They're going to learn to get on with other kids and other people and have a terrific start to their life so that those parents can go off to work and make a contribution to our economy. That is just such a vital part of this. This is not just cheap child care; this is a really important economic platform for our country.
My great hope and my great aspiration in supporting this appropriation bill is that we are paving the way for the next 10 years in Australia so that we can look back in another 10 years time and say that we've done a better job, we didn't waste those 10 years and we set our country up not only to be more prosperous but also to be more considerate and to be a happier place and a healthier place that rewards all Australians. I'm particularly proud to be part of a Labor government that is doing that. I know that my colleagues join me in congratulating the Treasurer and his team on delivering a budget that casts the net wider and that really creates a better environment for all Australians in the coming decades.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:32