The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:01, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (09:02): Today I do rise to speak to acknowledge that it is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, which will be marked this Friday, 25 November. Violence against women is one of the most widespread human rights abuses worldwide. More than a billion women globally have experienced physical or sexual violence, mostly by an intimate partner. That's one in three women. In every friendship group, in every family, one woman has experienced physical or sexual violence.
The International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is about recognising those women and joining in a global call to action to raise awareness, promote advocacy and create opportunities for discussion on the challenges and solutions related to the prevention and elimination of violence against women and girls. As an international community this day is one of the 16 days of activism that follow and is a chance to reflect on this violence, stand in solidarity with victim-survivors and commit to a world in which all women and girls are safe.
I'd like to take this moment here in this House to highlight the sobering statistics that confront us here in Australia. One woman dies every 10 days in Australia at the hands of her former or current partner. Before the end of this year, based on these statistics alone, three women will lose their lives to violence, often by someone who has professed to love and care for them. Every two minutes, police around the nation deal with a domestic and family violence matter. That's 5,000 calls a week on average, and we know for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women these statistics are even starker, with First Nations women 11 times more likely to be killed due to experiencing family and domestic violence than non-Indigenous women. Indigenous women are also 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of the violence they face. The statistics here in Australia for those women who've experienced violence since the age of 15 reflect those globally—one in three. One in two women have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime. These statistics have to change.
I acknowledge and pay tribute to the strength and resilience of so many victims-survivors of gender based violence and acknowledge the trauma that this violence has and the impact on individuals, families and communities—and, importantly, children.
We mourn the lives of women and children no longer with us, their lives stolen often by people they trusted and loved. I'd like to thank victims-survivors who continue to turn their trauma into action and advocacy, who share their lived experience despite the heavy emotional toll, and help us all be better at addressing this issue.
The statement from victims-survivors at the beginning of the new National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children are powerful words. They are words from victims-survivors and remind us why we must take action, and I'd urge everyone to take the time to read it.
In recognition of the theme of the 16 days of activism—UNITE! Activism to end violence against women and girls—I want to acknowledge the advocates and workers who have continued to drive change and call for action. It can be a tiring and exhausting task with an emotional toll, but we appreciate this commitment.
I acknowledge the efforts of workers on the front line, often women, who dedicate their lives to supporting victims-survivors in their recovery and their healing journeys. I also acknowledge the activists who keep the pressure up on all of us to do better. We have the opportunity in this place to work together towards making that a shared goal of the Commonwealth and all states and territories, and that is ending violence against women and children in one generation. We can make this a reality.
Last month it was an enormous privilege to release the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-2032 here in Australia. Our government, along with states and territories, has committed to a shared goal of ending violence against women and children, ending gendered violence within one generation. I acknowledge in this place it's ambitious, but if we all work together I believe we can achieve it.
It is my hope that our children and our children's children will not experience the same levels of violence we are seeing now. The national plan provides a blueprint for a whole-of-society approach to end violence against women and children within a generation. This will take time and it will take effort. That is why the national plan will support and guide our efforts over the next 10 years, and that's why I'm very pleased that in the most recent budget there was a record investment of $1.7 billion to end violence against women and children.
We've passed the legislation to provide paid family and domestic violence leave and, of course, implementing all the recommendations from the Respect@Work report. We are legislating a positive duty on employers to provide workplaces free of harassment and investing in consent and respectful relationships education in schools to stop violence at the start.
We are investing investments in the Housing Australia Future Fund to support women escaping domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness. It is our commitment to a country free of gender based violence; where all people live free from fear and violence and are safe at home, at work, at school in the community and, of course, online.
Living free of violence is a basic human right. Violence against women and children is not inevitable. We know what drives it—gender inequality. To stop this violence before it starts we must advance gender equality and address other forms of discrimination in every part of society.
In marking this Friday's International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women we must acknowledge that it's everybody's business to address the gender dimensions that drive family, domestic and sexual violence. Governments at all levels need to be pulling in the same direction, but we can't actually do this alone. We need businesses, schools, sporting clubs—every part of our community—to work hand-in-hand with us. Now is the time for genuine partnership to prevent violence before it occurs, to intervene early, and prevent further escalation, to respond appropriately when violence is used, and to support the recovery and healing of victims-survivors in ways that put them in the centre. Today and every day we acknowledge the lives lost to gender based violence. We will work to create an Australia where women and children can live their lives free and safely in all settings. Today and all days we say, 'No more.' We unite to end violence against women and children.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (09:10): I start by acknowledging the work and the words of the minister and commit to her that I will take a very bipartisan approach to this particular issue. I thank her for the work that she has done to date and I am very confident that she will continue to do some exceptional work in this space. There are many people in this place who have done an incredible amount of work to support people who have been affected by domestic violence. I do wish to acknowledge them. I particularly wish to acknowledge the member for Cowper, who is here in the chamber with me today. He has the role of shadow assistant minister for the prevention of family violence. He has done a tremendous amount of work to speak with people who have been affected by this issue. I know that he and everyone else here will do all that we can to make sure that we are preventing as much of this happening as we possibly can.
This week marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Addressing violence against women remains at the forefront of women's issues around the world and in Australia. All forms of domestic and family violence have their genesis in a lack of respect for a partner. This issue has been highlighted by the establishment of International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, held on 25 November each year. The dedication of this day gives our global community the opportunity to reflect upon, confront and oppose violence towards women, a blight that has transcended time, culture and location. It continues to proliferate throughout our society today. It should not.
Domestic and family violence stories and figures are very distressing and harrowing. They should make us take note that despite the progress we have made as a society there is still much more to be done. It's a global issue that needs to be tackled as a priority. We've all heard the sobering Australian figures and statistics. One Australian woman each week is killed by a violent, controlling male who she knows. One in four Australian women have experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner. In all likelihood we all know one of these victims. Unfortunately I am one of the people who has had to wait for text messages and phone messages to come in. The phone calls are much worse, wondering if someone that you love is still alive. In the time I have left in this place, however long it might be, I will dedicate myself to working to stop this violence. To those people who haven't experienced it, you can have no idea what it's like. For the people who sit innocently on the side and wait for that call, wondering if someone they love is okay, it is traumatic. When you're there at night and the phone rings and you wonder what you're going to hear, it's a terribly traumatic experience. But for all the things that I have experienced, there are many other people who have been on the front line and have experienced it themselves. For those people I will dedicate my time in this place to support you.
There are a number of women who have lost their lives. We all know some of the recent stories, particularly from Queensland: Hannah Clarke, Tara Brown, Kelly Wilkinson, and there are many, many more. This should not be allowed to be happening. A global shift in how society currently operates needs to take place to end violence against women and also against our children, who are victims in their own right when there is violence in the home. We as a society do need to change our behaviour, our thoughts and our values, where they allow any tolerance to this behaviour. I know that research commissioned by the coalition when we were in government, conducted by Kantar Public, found that, while there is widespread recognition that sexual consent needs to be addressed among young Australians, adults largely avoid the topic due to concerns they might not be on the same page. Half of all Australians are conflicted in that understanding of the problem and lack confidence in their ability to define consent.
To help tackle this issue from a legal perspective, many Australian states have or are planning on introducing affirmative consent laws. These changes bring our legislative frameworks into line with the community expectations that are already held. Clearly, this legislation is the right step but only part of the solution. Positively, this same research from Kantar Public also found there is a strong desire for clarity and leadership on the issue, with close to nine in 10 agreeing that adults should talk to young people more about the topic of consent.
Earlier this year, in my time speaking with some of the tireless volunteers and the dedicated people running a women's shelter in Launceston, I heard about the specific challenges women face when they choose to leave a violent relationship, which is when their personal safety risk tends to increase, and how sometimes these women choose to stay in their homes if there is no other housing available nearby. They simply have nowhere to go and often they have children to consider as well, so they stay in their homes.
I've heard these stories in many shelters around the country, in Townsville and at another shelter on the Gold Coast. It was raised with me by staff at charities and women's support service organisations in Perth and in Melbourne. The issue is very widespread, and COVID exacerbated it. Any single act of domestic violence being perpetrated against a woman or a man, or against children, or against any individual in a relationship, is unacceptable. We will work with the government to tackle this. Ensuring that domestic violence does not span generations is a mammoth task that should be a national priority.
The opposition acknowledges the plague that is domestic and family violence and the impact it has, primarily on women, children and the LGBTIQA+ community and their ability to live safely and contribute to our society as they wish. That's why we invested more than $2 billion since 2013 to prevent and respond to family, domestic and sexual violence. This went across programs tackling prevention, early intervention, response, recovery and funding initiatives such as Our Watch, Stop it at the Start, Respectful Relationships, an education online platform, expanding DV alert training, the escaping violence payment, maintaining protections against cross-examination by family violence perpetrators, and medical programs. Once again, we appreciate the bipartisan support from the minister and we commit to working with her.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member for McPherson for that brave statement.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security) (09:18): Just briefly: I am grateful to the shadow minister and the minister for the speeches that have just been made. I think it demonstrates the very real commitment on all sides of politics to address this issue. I'm sure I speak on behalf of all the members of parliament here when I say how truly grateful we are. Thank you to the minister and the shadow minister.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security) (09:18): by leave—I move:
That further statements in relation to the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:19): I present report No. 6 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 28 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, 22 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, 22 November 2022, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 28 November 2022, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly Kigali, Rwanda.
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10.15 am.
Speech time limits —
Mr Speaker —5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notic es
1 MS TINK: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to fuel quality standards and road vehicle standards, and for related purposes. (Fuel and Vehicle Standards Legislation Amendment (Reducing Vehicle Pollution) Bill 2022)
(Notice given 22 November 2022.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, and for related purposes. (Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Loot Boxes) Bill 2022)
(Notice given 22 November 2022.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period no t exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 MS STEGGALL: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022)
(Notice given 22 November 2022.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
4 MS J RYAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that in May 2022, Australians voted for change and for a Labor Government to build a better future;
(2) further notes that in the six months since the election, the Parliament:
(a) has already legislated to:
(i) fix the mess the previous Government made of the aged care sector;
(ii) deliver a cleaner and greener future to tackle climate change;
(iii) deliver cheaper medicines;
(iv) ten days paid family and domestic violence leave;
(v) repeal the cashless debit card;
(vi) expand access to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card; and
(vii) deliver a 'Future Made in Australia' with Jobs and Skills Australia; and
(b) is currently debating legislation to deliver:
(i) secure jobs and better pay;
(ii) a national anti-corruption commission;
(iii) safer and secure workplaces for Australian women; and
(iv) cheaper childcare for Australian families; and
(3) acknowledges that the Government is:
(a) delivering on its election commitments to build a better future; and
(b) being a responsible government in the face of challenging times globally.
(Notice given 22 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms J Ryan —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.
5 MR BOYCE: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that Australian households are worried about increasing pressures from the cost-of-living crisis brought about by recent interest rate rises and continued inflation;
(2) notes that:
(a) consecutive interest rate rises since May 2022 have placed mortgage stresses on many Australian households and more rises are expected;
(b) Australians are hurting, but in its budget, the Government failed to outline a plan to take pressure off interest rates; and
(c) Australians cannot wait another seven months for the Government's second budget to come up with a plan to deal with cost-of-living pressures that have become very real and painful for so many;
(3) recognises that despite telling Australians their power bills are going up by more than 50 per cent, their mortgage payments will continue to rise, the cost of groceries will remain high, and inflation will continue to surge, the Government still has no plan to tackle this cost-of-living crisis; and
(4) calls on the Government to focus on the issues that matter to Australians and to deliver a real and comprehensive plan to ease inflation and cost-of-living pressures.
(Notice given 22 November 2022.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits —
Mr Boyce —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for F ederation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS BELL: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the previous Government:
(a) reformed the childcare system in 2018 to provide more subsidy to families who need it most and establish a safety net to cover up to the full cost of full-time childcare for disadvantaged children;
(b) in March 2022, implemented reforms to provide higher childcare subsidy for second and subsequent children aged under six, where costs double or treble for families; and
(c) invested record funding in the childcare system, including around $11 billion budgeted for the 2022-23 financial year;
(2) further notes that the Government promised to deliver:
(a) childcare reform with no family worse off;
(b) an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission price regulation mechanism to control childcare fees; and
(c) terms of reference for a Productivity Commission review of a 90 per cent childcare subsidy within its first 100 days of office; and
(3) calls on the Government to explain:
(a) why it promised its childcare policy would ease cost of living pressures for families, but is delayed until July 2023; and
(b) whether, with skyrocketing childcare costs, Australian families will actually be better off.
(Notice given 6 September 2022.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Bell —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 MS STANLEY: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the 50th anniversary of the Whitlam Government's election will be marked on 2 December 2022; and
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) the Whitlam Government's reforms modernised Australian society and its economy; and
(b) the impact of Prime Minister Whitlam's policies continues to define Australia and the political landscape.
(Notice given 21 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Stanley —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 MR TED O'BRIEN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Government has committed Australia to the United Nations' 'loss and damage' fund without providing any details on what it will cost Australians or how it will be implemented;
(b) the Government has signed an international agreement which could cost Australians tens of billions of dollars without outlining any plan as to what is expected of Australia;
(c) the 'loss and damage' fund is reported to cost upwards of US $2 trillion globally per year by 2030;
(d) China, the world's second largest economy and the world's biggest carbon emitter has not been ruled out as a potential recipient of compensation funding due to its status as a developing nation;
(e) this scheme will penalise Australia for being blessed with an abundance of energy resources—resources that have been used to lift hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty;
(f) the Prime Minister was quick to rule out support for Australian families struggling with cost-of-living pressures in the budget but has effectively signed a blank cheque (which could be worth tens of billions of dollars) for an international compensation scheme with no detail, and for which no economic modelling has been undertaken;
(g) Australia has a long history of supporting its regional partners, especially those in the Pacific, and at COP26 the former Government doubled its climate finance commitment to $2 billion over 2020-25, with at least $700 million for Pacific climate and disaster finance; and
(h) instead of finding a solution to skyrocketing domestic power prices, that are threatening up to 800,000 manufacturing jobs, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has focused the Government's attention on committing the country to international pledges for which there is no detail; and
(2) calls on the Government to explain what the 'loss and damage' fund will cost Australian taxpayers.
(Notice given 22 November 2 022.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Ted O'Brien —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 da y.
4 MR GOSLING: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that 2022 represents a significant year for Australian military commemorative milestones, including the:
(a) 80th anniversary of the Battle for Australia;
(b) 80th anniversary of the sinking of the HMAS Armidale;
(c) 80th anniversary of pushing back the Japanese on the Kokoda Track;
(d) 75th anniversary of Australian Peacekeeping efforts; and
(e) 50th anniversary of the end of National Service;
(2) notes that:
(a) Australia continues to recognise all those who defended our country during the Second World War, at home and in land, air and sea battles to our north as part of the Battle for Australia, which helped tum the tide of war against Japan;
(b) throughout 1942, Australian forces desperately fought to halt and eventually push back the Japanese along the Kokoda Track, in Buna, Gona and Sanananda in Papua, in New Guinea, the Huon Peninsula, Wewak and on the island of Bougainville;
(c) on 1 December 1942, 100 Australians died during the sinking of the HMAS Armidale, the largest loss of life from any corvette in the Second World War;
(d) Australians were part of the first United Nations peacekeeping operation when military observers were deployed to the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) in 1947 and since that time, Australian peacekeepers have served in locations around the world, ranging from the Middle East to Africa, Southeast Asia and the Pacific in every year since; and
(e) Australia's fourth iteration of National Service was abolished by the Whitlam Labor Government on 5 December 1972;
(3) expresses its thanks to all former and current personnel for their service;
(4) remembers the lives and sacrifice of those service personnel who have died in and as a result of service to our nation; and
(5) further acknowledges the families who have been left behind and those who support loved ones who have served.
(Notice given 9 November 2022.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Speech time limits —
Mr Go sling —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.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices — continued
5 DR GILLESPIE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that, the:
(a) Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand (RISE) fund was an effective and targeted arts funding initiative supporting 541 projects in over 4,000 locations, creating over 195,000 job opportunities and experiences reaching more than 55 million Australians;
(b) Arts Sustainability Fund was key to supporting systemically significant arts companies to survive through the COVID-19 pandemic with recipients including, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, the Sydney Theatre Company, Brandenburg Ensemble, Queensland Ballet, Opera Australia, Design Tasmania, the National Institute of Dramatic Art, Melbourne Theatre Company, The Australian Ballet, Belvoir Theatre, Circa Contemporary Circus Limited, and Malthouse Theatre; and
(c) highest level of Commonwealth arts funding ever achieved was under the previous Government in 2021-2022 when the funding exceeded $1 billion; and
(2) expresses its regret at the adverse effect on the arts sector of politically motivated arts policy decisions since May 2022 including, the:
(a) grave mishandling of the additional $20 million of funding for RISE which was provided in the March 2022 budget, with the Government delaying action for many months before cancelling this funding in October;
(b) announcement in September that the Government would establish a Live Performance Support Fund with no guidelines, eligibility conditions or other details provided at that time and still not provided two months later; and
(c) abrupt and discourteous disbanding of the Creative Economy Taskforce which comprised a distinguished group of arts leaders doing outstanding work in advising on the Government arts policy.
(Notice given 22 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Dr Gillespie —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 MR B MITCHELL: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) for nearly a decade, the former Government's oversight of the National Broadband Network (NBN) had been a masterclass in technological incompetence and financial mismanagement, causing Australia to trail other developed countries on broadband quality and speeds;
(b) the Government is delivering what Australians voted for and will expand full fibre access to 1.5 million premises by 2025 with a $2.4 billion equity investment over four years in the 2022-23 budget;
(c) this will:
(i) deliver a faster and more reliable NBN to more families, communities, and businesses and allow more Australians to take advantage of an increasingly digital global economy; and
(ii) give Australians who now rely on copper connections the choice of having full fibre connections to their premises if they want a faster NBN service than their current copper wire can deliver; and
(2) acknowledges economic analysis commissioned by NBN Co that estimates the additional fibre-to-the-premises connections will deliver an additional $20 billion uplift in gross domestic product by 2030 through connecting communities and businesses to faster and more reliable broadband services.
(Notice given 22 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 40 min utes.
Speech time limits —
Mr B Mitchell —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.
7 MR KATTER: To move:
That this House:
(1) calls on the Government to provide for agricultural security in Australia particularly given recent dramatic increases in the cost of production as a result of dislocations in imports and Australia continuing to be a net importer of fruit and vegetables:
(a) food and manufacturing labelling that highlights hidden imports and prevents fraud;
(b) fresh produce labelling system that indicates the farm gate price (and the supermarket mark up);
(c) 'divesture' legislation that reduces the market power of the corporations that operate the major supermarkets. With the objective of levelling the playing field providing a competitive marketplace for consumers and suppliers;
(d) National Office of Better Agricultural Regulation with powers to reduce red tape and consider the actual cost of implementing both marketplace regulations (ie. Freshcare, HARPS, Fair Farms), and government regulations (ie. PALM Scheme, reef regulation, water, conservation and protection);
(e) investment in infrastructure and critical supplies/support industries to reduce production and transportation costs (ie. gas prices for fertiliser, chemical, fuel, worker access);
(f) reforming the PALM scheme to ensure farmers have direct access to the program.
(Notice given 6 September 2022.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Katter —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.
8 MS BYRNES: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) can be life-changing for Australians with disability;
(2) recognises the NDIS is not working as effectively as it should due to a decade of neglect and mismanagement by the previous Government, creating an urgent need to:
(a) improve outcomes for participants;
(b) restore trust in the scheme and certainty for participants and their families; and
(c) improve the effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS and broader social and economic benefits, without imposing the types of blunt force cuts favoured by the previous Government;
(3) notes the measures the Government has already taken to get the NDIS back on track, including:
(a) installing new leadership at the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and putting people with a disability at the centre of the scheme;
(b) reducing the inherited 4,500 case backlog of expensive, time-consuming appeals before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by 2000 cases to date;
(c) reducing the number of people with disability trapped in hospitals despite being medically fit for discharge; and
(d) funding 380 new positions in the NDIA for better and faster planning decisions for people with disability and their families, carers, disability service providers and workers;
(4) calls on Members of the House to support the work ahead to make the NDIS the world-leading scheme it was designed to be, through:
(a) the root and branch review of the NDIS to improve its effectiveness, so that future generations receive the benefits of the scheme;
(b) planning for a workforce that can support the projected increase in NDIS participants;
(c) establishing a senior executive role within the NDIA to bolster its stewardship of the sector; and
(d) reducing waste and fraud so money intended for participants is not syphoned off or squandered; and
(5) further notes the benefits to the Australian community and our economy when we invest in people with disability and break down barriers to their participation in social and economic life.
(Notice given 22 November 2022.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Byrnes —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 MS BELL: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the Baha'i faith and their right to express their religious beliefs;
(2) condemns the actions of the Iranian Government's persecution of those of the Baha'i faith including the:
(a) imprisonment of Iranian Bahai's due to their faith;
(b) destruction and repossession of property and belongings of Iranian Baha'is;
(c) propaganda and incitement of hate and violence against those of the Baha'i faith; and
(d) barred access to education, including higher education for many Iranian Baha'is
(3) endorses the work of the Baha'i community in Australia who support citizens escaping persecution, and draw attention to the violation of humans rights of Baha'is in Iran.
(Notice given 27 September 2022)
Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.
Speech time limits —
Ms Bell —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 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
23 November 2022
BILLS
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Ind (Pocock) (1) [Sheet 1741]
Title, page 1 (line 2), after "assistance", insert "to provide more affordableearly childhood education and care".
( 2 ) Opp (1) [Sheet 1 731 ]
Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "3", substitute "4".
( 3 ) Opp ( 2 ) [Sheet 1 731 ]
Page 3 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of this Act
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the impact of the amendments made by this Act on:
(a) the cost of child care fees and the loss of subsidies to price increases and inflation; and
(b) the creation of new and additional child care places; and
(c) changes to service gaps across Australia, particularly in rural, regional and remote Australia; and
(d) changes to Indigenous children's attendance, specifically any increase in the number of Indigenous children attending child care; and
(e) the number of early childhood educators and any workforce gaps; and
(f) any increase to the workforce participation rate; and
(g) any increases in productivity.
(3) The persons who conduct the review must consider both quantitative and qualitative research in conducting the review.
(4) The review must commence no later than 1 July 2024.
(5) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review.
(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
( 4 ) Ind (Pocock) ( 2 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 5, item 3, page 23 (line 19), omit "educator", substitute "staff".
( 5 ) Ind (Pocock) ( 3 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 5, item 4, page 23 (line 24), omit "educator", substitute "staff".
( 6 ) Ind (Pocock) ( 4 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 2), after "educator", insert "or cook".
( 7 ) Ind (Pocock) ( 5 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 7), omit "educator", substitute "staff".
( 8 ) Ind (Pocock) ( 6 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 14), after "Law)", insert "or a cook".
( 9 ) Ind (Pocock) ( 7 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 18), omit "educator", substitute "staff".
(1 0 ) Ind (Pocock) ( 8 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 23), omit "educator", substitute "staff".
(1 1 ) Ind (Pocock) ( 9 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 6, item 2, page 27 (line 23), omit "educator", substitute "staff".
(1 2 ) Ind (Pocock) (1 0 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 6, item 5, page 28 (line 9), omit "educator", substitute "staff".
(1 3 ) Ind (Pocock) (1 1 ) [Sheet 1741]
Schedule 6, item 5, page 28 (line 14), omit "educator", substitute "staff".
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (09:20): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Today is a great day for more than a million Australian families. It's a great day for children, it's a great day for their parents, it's a great day for Australian businesses, it's a great day for our economy—it's a great day for our country. This was one of the biggest and most important commitments that we made at the last election to the Australian people, an almost $5 billion investment in our children's future, and it will cut the cost of early education and care for more than one million Australian families. That's real help with the cost of living. For the average Australian family, on a combined income of about $120,000, it will cut the cost of early education and care by about $1,700 a year. That's real help.
But this is also real economic reform, because when you cut the cost of early education and care it makes it easier for parents, in particular for mothers, to return to paid work, to work more days and to work more hours, and that means more skilled workers back in the workforce—according to Treasury, the equivalent of up to 37,000 full-time workers back in the economy. Most importantly of all this helps our children. More time in early education and care makes sure that our children are ready to start school. So this is the trifecta: it's good for our children, it's good for parents and it's good for the economy.
But this legislation is just the start. The next step is the ACCC inquiry into the cost of early education and care. That kicks off in January, and we'll get their interim report in June. Next year we'll also kick off a big and broad review of early education and care. That work will be done by the Productivity Commission, and that's important work. That will help us chart a course for the next wave of reforms, a long-term plan for early childhood education and care. As the Prime Minister said in this debate only a couple of weeks ago:
Just as universal Medicare guarantees every Australian the right to quality and affordable healthcare, just as universal superannuation ensures every Australian can know dignity and security in their retirement, we want universal child care to guarantee every Australian family the support they need and every Australian child the opportunity that they deserve.
I want to thank all of those who have helped us to make this day happen: first, to the Minister for Social Services, who shaped this policy in opposition; to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Anne Aly, my friend, who helped us to bring this legislation to the parliament; to Senator Anthony Chisolm, the Assistant Minister for Education, who guided this legislation through the Senate; and to the Prime Minister, who has championed this from the very start—thank you. I also want to thank all of my colleagues, who campaigned for this right across the country through the campaign. It's your work and it's your effort that have helped to make this day a reality.
I also want to thank the officials in the Department of Education, who worked tirelessly to prepare this bill, people who've done a hell of a lot of work and often are not recognised: Brenton Philp, Tristan Reed and Michele Arcaro, amongst many others who helped craft this legislation and have it ready for the parliament to consider. And to everybody who works in early education and care—the educators, the staff, the teachers, the administrators—and everybody who has given this legislation their support, thank you. There aren't many jobs in this country that are more important than the work that you do, and we thank you for it.
I also want to thank all members of the crossbench, who have been critical in this debate and have offered their support: the members for Wentworth, Kooyong, Goldstein, Mackellar, Mayo, North Sydney, Warringah and many others. Thank you for your strong words of support for these critical reforms. I also want to thank Senator Pocock, whose work on this issue in the Senate has helped to make this a better bill. I'm glad that, despite two years of relentless opposition, the opposition has decided to finally support this legislation as well.
This is the best kind of economic reform. It's one that benefits two generations at once, that has at its heart a better start in life for our children, that gives parents more choice, that provides more access to early education for the youngest Indigenous Australians, that boosts our economy—all at the same time, all in the same bill. I am proud to see it become law today.
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (09:25): The coalition has not opposed this bill, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022, from the beginning. There have been two amendments to the bill, and the coalition supports both. However, during the course of the debate, we have raised our strong concerns around access and workforce issues across the early learning sector, and those problems remain in the sector. These amendments do not address either of these pressing issues. However, a review in July 2024, 12 months after the commencement of these changes, will allow the coalition to assess if this bill has in fact delivered the government's promise of cheaper child care.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (09:26): On election night, I spoke about the great mission of Labor governments to widen further the doors of opportunity for Australians, and that is precisely what this legislation, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022, is aimed at doing. When I had the great honour of becoming the Leader of the Labor Party, I put this reform at the centre of my first budget reply. At the time, it received vociferous opposition from the then government. They said that it was outrageous to suggest we should remove the cap on the childcare rebate, before they eventually made some small steps towards it themselves. They said that it was irresponsible to support wealthier people to receive more childcare support from the government, and they reversed their usual rhetoric about class envy in the way that they approached our announcement. We did so because, if you look at how we do two tasks at once—address cost-of-living pressures and do it in a way which boosts productivity and which doesn't put pressure on inflation—there is no better reform than the one that will pass the parliament today.
Just six months to the day, yesterday, after we were sworn in, we are passing a centrepiece of what we took to the Australian people in May and what we campaigned for over such a long period of time. Indeed, I well recall members of the media suggesting to me that we were visiting too many early learning centres. 'Why are we back, talking about child care again?' We did talk about it for the entire term, and we'll continue to talk about it as we see these reforms make a difference, because this is about economic reform. It was never about welfare. When any of our children decide to go to the local public school, universality in the public school system, just as in our public health system, doesn't require your credit card. It requires either just your Medicare card or just all children mixing. One of the ways you maintain social support for programs is through the principle of universality. When an issue is not about welfare but is about access and opportunity for all, then I see early learning as being part of that. Why is it that so many parents will say to you that they are better off once their child, little John or little Mary, reaches the age of five? All of a sudden they have better economic circumstances, but it makes no sense whatsoever for that to be the case—and it's not the case in most advanced economies in the OECD if we look at best practice.
The benefit of this reform is that it will boost workforce participation of women. It will add many thousands of full-time equivalents to the workforce at a time when we have skills shortages out there. The second benefit is that it will boost productivity by removing the disincentive for women in particular to work a fourth or a fifth day. It will enable them to enhance the careers that they have going forward. That will lead not just to higher incomes and boosts in productivity for their work.
It will also ensure that their retirement incomes are higher. It will enhance the productivity of businesses, enhance the income of working women and families and make a difference to governments' fiscal circumstances in the future. We know that the greatest rising source of poverty is older women who find themselves by themselves. They have the highest rate of increase in homelessness. We need to address the retirement incomes of women.
So, this is good for the youngest Australians but, in the future, it will be good the oldest Australians as well. That's why it has such strong support from the business community. But it's also good for our young ones. Over 90 per cent of human brain development occurs in the first five years of life—over 90 per cent. If you can give people that good start in life it will, at a time when Australia is falling down on all of the indices of educational attainment, make an incredible difference to them, as well as straight out education in the traditional sense. One of the learning experiences that our youngest Australians get from early learning centres is that they learn to engage. They get that social learning that is so important—how to cooperate, how to share, how to engage with people for the first time. So, giving our kids the best start in life, boosting our economy, boosting productivity, boosting equity is what this legislation is about.
I want to thank and congratulate the ministers for their fine work on this. I also want to thank people out there like the Parenthood and other organisations who have been relentless in their support for this legislation. They've gone out there and said that this is a reform that really matters to them. I also want to thank those educators who've welcomed us into centres in every state and territory of the country I have been in and who work every day, underpaid and undervalued. They do that work because of their commitment and the sense of satisfaction that they get out of it, but they have been universal in their support for this reform.
There's more to do, but this is a great start as a part of what my government has seen as a priority, which is delivering on the commitments that we took to the Australian people and that we received a mandate for. The Australian people voted for change on 21 May, and today they have it, and, as a result, our future youngest Australians will benefit, families will benefit and our economy will benefit as well.
Dr ALY (Cowan—Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth) (09:35): This government went to the election in May with a clear agenda to reduce the cost of living for working families and a clear agenda on gender equality. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022, which was passed last night in the Senate, kicks both of those goals and more. Most importantly, though, what this bill does is that it provides access to early childhood education for more children in those very critical early years from zero to five, when the social, cognitive and emotional development of children is really occurring at quite an incredible pace. This morning, the Minister for Education, the member for Canberra, the assistant minister and I were at an early childhood centre in civic. You watch these children, and you know that in those first five years they're learning to walk, they're learning to talk, they're learning to share, they're learning to express their emotions and they're learning to express what it is that they want—an incredible amount of learning in those first five years.
This bill means that, for 1.2 million families across Australia, their children will have better access to quality early childhood education and care. For families earning $80,000 or less, this bill increases the maximum CCS rate to 90 per cent. What that means for the primary caregivers in those families, who are primarily women, is that they can work extra hours if they want to and contribute more to the household income. But, importantly, it also means that they can progress their careers. They don't have to take more time out of their careers. They can progress their careers if they want to, and they can seek further study if they want to or need to.
These are really important reforms for gender equality. Coupled with some of the other bills that we've passed in just our first six months of parliament, I think it's a true demonstration of just how much this government is committed to achieving that goal and that promise that we went to the election with: achieving gender equality for women, allowing more women to do more hours at work and progress their careers or to undertake further study if they so wish, and giving them better economic security later in their lives by making early childhood education more affordable for women, for families and for Australia more generally.
The Prime Minister and the minister have already spoken at length about the benefits of this bill, so I want to use the time I have left just to add my thanks to a number of people who have really contributed to the success of this bill. First and foremost, I want to say a huge thank you to the sector, to the early childhood educators out there, who work so tirelessly. As the Prime Minister said, they are undervalued and underpaid. They work so tirelessly because they believe in what they're doing. They believe in the value of early childhood education. They believe in how good early childhood education can transform lives. I know that it made a huge difference in the lives of my children and I am eternally grateful to the early childhood educators who educated my children so that I could go back to university and lift my family and myself out of poverty.
I want to thank the Minister for Education, my good friend, Jason Clare; the Minister for Social Services, who laid the groundwork for this in opposition; and the Prime Minister for his unwavering support and for his deep, deep belief in the value of universal early childhood education. We know that when we invest in those early years, it means that we spend less money later. We know that; the evidence tells us that.
So, in closing, I congratulate and thank all my colleagues. I visited many early childhood learning centres with colleagues who are here today. It is a good day today. It is a good day for families. It is a good day for women and it is an especially good day for children right across Australia.
Question agreed to.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by MrJones
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (09:42): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There is nary a more exciting bill that gets moved before the House than the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2022, and we have drawn a huge crowd here in the chamber for that purpose. At the outset I want to thank—
Mr Robert interjecting—
Mr JONES: The member for Fadden makes a good point that a lot of staff in the Treasury portfolio agencies have been working very hard over the last 12 months to find technical anomalies and errors in the laws, and this bill is the product of their work, so I thank them for it.
This bill contains measures designed to maintain and improve Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure it remains current and fit-for-purpose.
This bill reflects the government's commitment to regulatory stewardship through regular maintenance and improvement of portfolio legislation. This program of work is ongoing, and the government intends to pursue regular improvement and maintenance opportunities, where possible, in conjunction with its wider reform agenda.
Schedule 1 to the bill will modernise several Treasury portfolio laws to improve their technology neutrality and address unnecessary barriers to the use of digital communications.
These amendments build on temporary changes—and many of them make permanent the temporary changes—introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to allow businesses greater flexibility in how they conduct operations and engage with consumers.
Schedule 1 to the bill will ensure that all documents required or permitted to be signed under the Corporations Act 2001 can be signed in a technology-neutral way.
It will replace outdated requirements to publish notices in newspapers. Notices will need to be published in a way that ensures they are reasonably prominent and accessible to the intended audience.
The amendments in schedule 1 to the bill make it clear that Treasury portfolio regulators can hold hearings and examinations virtually, and also allows more payments to be made electronically.
Together, these reforms will facilitate the use of digital technologies and provide greater choice to individuals and businesses in how they communicate and operate.
The government will continue to ensure that the legislative framework remains fit-for-purpose as technology continues to evolve.
The amendments in schedule 2 address complexity in the design of definitions in the corporations and financial services law, including by removing redundant definitions and using consistent headings for definition sections. These amendments, I understand, arise out of an initial response from the Australian Law Reform Commission and its report.
Amendments in schedule 3 to the bill transfer longstanding and accepted matters currently contained in ASIC legislative instruments to the Corporations Act 2001 and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. This will improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty, and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.
Schedule 4 to the bill makes a number of miscellaneous and technical amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure that Treasury laws operate as intended. The amendments variously clarify the law to ensure that it operates in accordance with the policy intent, make minor policy changes to improve administrative outcomes or remedy unintended consequences, and correct technical or drafting defects.
These amendments will make it easier for Australians to comply with current laws.
The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to the bill as required under the Business Names Agreement 2009, the Corporations Agreement 2002 and the National Credit Law Agreement 2009.
In the normal way, the full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Jones.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (09:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill delivers for the Australian people.
From enhancing a digital games industry to supporting our veterans, this bill delivers.
From boosting small business to being a significant step in the government's plan to reduce Australia's emissions, the bill delivers.
I am also pleased to announce that the Albanese government will overhaul the transparency requirements for superannuation funds so that members can access clearer, more meaningful, and more consistent information about their fund.
The government is committed to strengthening Australia's world-class superannuation system to maximise returns so that all Australians can retire with dignity.
A transparent system with consistently reported data is central to this outcome so that members have meaningful information to hold trustees to account and make accurate comparisons between funds on performance, fees and expenditure.
I want to take this opportunity to outline the government's three-part plan to deliver a genuinely transparent superannuation system that is member-centric.
Today is part 1, introducing legislation aligning super funds' financial and accounting reporting obligations with those of public companies. This includes filing an annual report, publicly available financial reports with ASIC.
Part 2 is a new annual superannuation transparency report to be delivered by the regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority.
This will be a single source of granular, consistent information for members to compare performance and analyse expenditure of their fund and every other regulated superannuation entity.
Part 3 is reforming the existing rules so that every part of the reporting stream, from the annual report to the annual transparency support published by the regulator, and the annual member meeting notice, is in alignment—all aligned and ensuring that members, regulators and the public have access to the relevant information in the right place at the right time and in a consistent format. No double counting, no infection of ideology in what should be a straightforward operation of providing members with the information that they need and deserve in the right place at the right time.
Our world-class $3.3 billion superannuation system is, frankly, something that every Australian can and should be proud of.
We should always look for ways to strengthen it, and this bill achieves that by embracing transparency and accountability.
Schedule 1 to the bill establishes the digital games tax offset (DGTO). For the first time, Australia will have a dedicated tax offset that supports the emerging digital games sector.
The DGTO is a 30 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible companies that develop eligible games and spend a minimum of $500,000 on qualifying Australian development expenditure from 1 July of this year. This new offset is estimated to increase payments by a total of $38.4 million over four years from financial year 2021-22.
All entertainment and educational games will be eligible for the DGTO, provided they can receive a classification from the Australian Classification Board and are broadly available to the general public. Importantly, gambling-like activities are excluded from this measure. All entertainment and educational games are eligible for the DGTO, as I said, as long as they receive the Australian Classification Board rating and do not involve gambling-like activities.
The DGTO will strengthen the Australian digital games industry, expand employment opportunities for digital and creative talent, enhance the industry's international competitiveness and make Australia more attractive for foreign investment. I want to commend the Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Communications for their energy and their activity around this particular measure, something that they have been longstanding advocates for.
Schedule 2 of the bill amends the tax law to clarify that digital currencies (such as bitcoin) continue to be excluded from being treated as a foreign currency for Australian income tax purposes. Now, many members of this House might be curious to know why we need to do this. The fact is the legislation will maintain the status quo. Clarification in the legislation is necessary following a decision by the El Salvadorian government to recognise bitcoin as unrestricted legal tender from 7 September 2021. We're advised by the Australian tax commissioner that this introduced uncertainty about the status of bitcoin and similar digital currencies for Australian income tax purposes. This bill addresses the uncertainty by making it quite clear that bitcoin is not currency, or will not be taxed as currency, under Australian law.
Schedule 3 to the bill provides the Commissioner of Taxation with the power to allow employers to rely on existing corporate records, rather than employee declarations and other prescribed records, to finalise their fringe benefits tax (FBT) returns. This will reduce compliance costs for employers, while maintaining the integrity of the FBT system.
Schedule 4 to the bill and schedule 5 to the bill are related. They introduce the Skills and Training Boost and the Technology and Investment Boost arrangements respectively.
The Skills and Training Boost will support small businesses to train and upskill employees.
Small businesses with annual turnover less than $50 million per annum will have access to a bonus of 20 per cent deduction for eligible expenditure on external training of employees. This measure is being legislated to build a better trained and more productive workforce, helping to address skills shortages. The Skills and Training Boost will be available to eligible businesses from 30 June 2024.
Schedule 5 to the bill introduces the Technology and Investment Boost, again directed at small business, to support eligible small businesses to improve their digital capacity, allowing them to enhance productivity and business growth. Small businesses will have access to a bonus of 20 per cent tax deduction for eligible expenditure of up to $100,000 per income year to support their digital operations. Unlike the previous measure, this will be available until 30 June 2023.
Schedule 6 to the bill, which I alluded to in my opening comments, extends and adapts the financial reporting auditing requirements which apply to registrable superannuation entities, or RSEs.
Australia's superannuation system manages over $3.3 trillion in retirement savings on behalf of around 16 million Australians. Given the superannuation system's size and compulsory nature, every Australian should expect to have the highest level of accountability and transparency from their superannuation fund and its trustees. This measure seeks to ensure that the transparency, regulatory oversight and rigorous standards for the reporting of superannuation fund financial information meet these expectations.
The new financial reporting requirements require RSEs to lodge financial reports with ASIC, and that these will be publicly available.
These new requirements will also impose stricter requirements for auditors of RSEs. This includes imposing additional reporting and independence obligations for audit firms and audit companies.
The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was consulted in relation to this measure as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.
Schedule 7 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include Australian Education Research Organisation Ltd, the Jewish Education Foundation (Vic) Ltd, Melbourne Business School Ltd, Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Ltd, Leaders Institute of South Australia Inc, and St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund on the list of deductible gift recipients.
The schedule extends the current listings for Sydney Chevra Kadisha and Australian Women Donors Network respectively. It also removes the listing for Mt Eliza Graduate School of Business and Government Ltd, which is no longer in operation.
DGR status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the gifts to the listed organisations.
If I could move now to schedule 8 to the bill, it makes amendments to the Clean Energy Finance Corporations Act 2012—very important to enable the government to implement its election commitments.
The government's $20-billion Rewiring the Nation election commitment will modernise Australia's electricity grids. It will help to put downward pressure on the cost of electricity bills, lower the cost of electricity bills for consumers, help manage the electricity system and increase renewables in the grid.
This measure is a significant step in the government's plan to reduce Australia's emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and to net zero by 2050.
This will have the potential to accelerate Australia's transition to net zero emissions by 2050.
Schedule 9 to the bill will ensure that veterans affected by the Full Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Douglas will not face worse income tax outcomes as a result of the court's decision. The government's objective is that nobody is worse off. The legislation will preserve the preferable tax and outcomes for affected veterans as a result of the decision.
To do this, this measure introduces a new non-refundable tax offset for members of the Military Superannuation and Benefits (MSB) and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) schemes that ensures that individuals who would face adverse tax outcomes as a result of the court's decision will not pay higher taxes on their superannuation invalidity benefit. This offset will also apply to spouse and children's pensions paid to a spouse or child following the death of a member of a scheme affected by the Douglas decision.
This measure will also ensure that any benefits that the Douglas decision may apply to beyond the MSB and DFRDB benefits, will continue to be taxed as superannuation income streams, by amending the legislative definition of superannuation income streams. The measure also includes a transitional provision to ensure that certain non-military invalidity benefits that received lump sum status prior to the Douglas decision are not disturbed by this reversal, while the government considers the appropriate future treatment of these pensions.
. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Joint Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (10:02): The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Cadell has been appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
BILLS
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (10:03): I move the motion that has been circulated in my name in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022:
(1) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm on Wednesday, 23 November, the bills being called on together for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until either:
(a) no further Members rise to speak; or
(b) a Minister requires that the debate be adjourned at no earlier than 10 pm;
at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 24 November at 9 am;
(2) from 7.30 pm on Wednesday, 23 November until the adjournment of the House:
(a) any division called for being deferred until the first opportunity on Thursday, 24 November; and
(b) if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker announcing that he will count the House at the first opportunity on Thursday, 24 November, if the Member then so desires; and
(3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.
The impact of the motion that I have moved will be to help us meet the government's objective of making sure that we can get the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill across to the Senate this year. If the motion is carried, speaking times will remain at 15 minutes. We should actually finish at the normal time, if you look at the number of people on the speaking list at the moment, but sometimes people add themselves late. As a way of making sure that we can get through this today, this motion will allow speeches to continue until at least 10 pm. The adjournment debate will still happen between 7.30 and 8 pm. Having debated whether the House will adjourn, we will then not adjourn and will return to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. If we get to 10 pm—and I don't think we will—it will be at the discretion of the minister at the table to make a judgement as to whether there is only one or two people left and allow the House to continue to sit; or, if we run out of speakers, for the minister at the table to have right of reply, at which point, when there are no further speakers, the House would automatically adjourn.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr Burke: There are no quorums after 6.30 pm.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022
National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment in respect of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to set a funding floor for the NACC which is equal to the amount allocated to the NACC in the 2022-23 Budget; and ensures that the annual budget for the NACC includes a minimum indexation which is not less than the annual CPI".
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER (Griffith) (10:06): The Greens have been pushing for a federal corruption watchdog for 13 years now and will be supporting this bill. My colleague Larissa Waters, who actually had a bill pass the Senate to establish a national anticorruption commission last year, has been relentless in this space, along with Bob Brown, Lee Rhiannon, Christine Milne and independents Cathy McGowan and Helen Haines, as well as my colleague David Shoebridge in the Senate.
This bill is an absolutely important step forward when it comes to accountability and integrity. Indeed, this is a chance to get it right. Getting it right does mean listening to the whistleblowers and civil society organisations and associations who have provided excellent advice and feedback about amendments that we need to make to this bill. There is a strong public mandate for a truly independent, accountable and empowered commission that can get to the bottom of integrity matters, including porkbarrelling and dodgy donations. This bill gets right the establishment and powers of the commission generally. We strongly support the retrospective capacity. The test of serious or systematic is generally appropriate.
There are some key concerns, though, that we have with the final model, which we will seek to address with amendments in the Senate. The bill doesn't go far enough to establish an integrity commission with teeth. I will be seeking amendments to address the following issues. The bar for public hearings is too high. This has been well ventilated in public. Public hearings are an essential function of the NACC, and limiting those to extraordinary circumstances in a secret deal with Peter Dutton isn't acceptable. Secret trials won't stop corruption. Indeed, I think we're seeing the impact of two different types of anticorruption commissions across the country right now. In New South Wales, where there is a much better standard for public hearings in the New South Wales ICAC, the public is at least able to see the workings of that anticorruption commission, whereas down in Victoria with the IBAC we've seen a lot of rumours and innuendo around the operation of that IBAC without the capacity for the public to actually see what's going on and what's being investigated. I think that's an excellent example of exactly why we need a less stringent standard for public hearings than is currently proposed in this bill.
The oversight committee should be genuinely independent, which means there should be a non-government chair to ensure the government doesn't dominate the body. There was a commitment of $262 million to the NACC over four years in the most recent budget, but there is no independent budget process in place, meaning this could be significantly reduced by any future government at will. An independent process would be a better way to guarantee the NACC is not hobbled by those that it may be seeking to investigate.
We will move to exclude former politicians from being commissioners of the NACC. I don't think anyone in the public would think it appropriate that politicians be appointed commissioners of an organisation that is meant to investigate those past colleagues. We will also look to improve protections for journalists' sources and protect journalists' interests when warrants are issued, and we will propose changes that limit what type of corruption can be investigated.
I think it's worth being clear that the National Anti-Corruption Commission on its own is not going to be the silver bullet that deals with so many of the concerns in the public and the institutional influence that often big corporations in particular wield over our political system. It's worth noting that a lot of the concerns held by the public—which the Greens share—are that too often it seems like big corporations are able to wield enormous influence over the political process, often in what are, technically, legal ways. This does nothing to address the revolving door between politics and big business. Ministers and their senior staff from both major parties routinely go on to work for the industries they were supposed to be regulating: sitting on boards, taking up generous consultancies or lobbying their former colleagues in government. It is worth considering a list of past ministers and major party MPs who have gone on to work for big corporations or their associated lobby groups. At the state level, the ex-premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, is now the CEO of the Australian Banking Association. Ian Macfarlane went from industry minister to the board of Woodside and CEO of the Queensland Resources Council. His ALP counterpart, Martin Ferguson, took the role of the chairman of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association advisory council. Just this week, Joel Fitzgibbon is in the news because he's joined the board of Brickworks, a company which invests in coalmines and has profited from the New Hope coal corporation, just the type of fossil fuel development Fitzgibbon pushed for in his time in parliament. Nicola Roxon, a former health minister, later worked for the private health insurance fund Bupa. Ben Wyatt, a former treasurer in WA under a Labor government, joined the boards of Rio Tinto and Woodside immediately after retiring from politics. Brendan Nelson, a former defence minister, is now president of Boeing Australia, a top-five defence contractor.
These are not just isolated instances. The Grattan Institute has found that since the nineties more than a quarter of major party federal MPs who served in executive government move across to peak bodies, lobbying firms or directly into big business after their retirement from politics. That is a massive problem, because, in particular, too often surely one of the most general motivations for these corporations or peak lobby groups in hiring ex-ministers or ex-government and ex-opposition MPs is because of their connections into those governments or political parties. I think the general public would assume that is a generally bad and terrible precedent and standard to set, and it is something we should be doing a lot better on. The Greens previously proposed that we should ban ex-politicians, and in particular ministers, from going on to work for lobbyist organisations or for big corporations that they were previously in charge of regulating.
Nor does this bill do anything to address corporate donations and cash-for-access meetings. Cash-for-access meetings via fundraising forums don't count as donations. Often, they are listed as other receipts. The ALP's federal Labor Business Forum costs up to $110,000 a year, giving donors the chance to mingle with ministers at dinners and drinks and be briefed on policy. Members of both parties' fundraising arms in 2019-20 included Wesfarmers, Woodside Energy, banks, resource companies and big pharma companies, alongside consulting firms like PwC and Deloitte, who regularly win government contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It is completely inappropriate that we have a fundraising strategy by the major parties that involves giving special access to government and shadow ministers, which the big corporations will often pay either $110,000 or $27,500 for. In the past, we know that corporations like Bupa have paid for that access to government ministers, which is completely inappropriate.
When you think about it in simple terms, the effect is that when you have $27,500 or $110,000 you get access to government ministers and opposition shadow ministers that you otherwise would not get. We are meant to live in a democracy. It seems deeply inappropriate that someone who does not have $27,500 to spare or $110,000 for the federal Labor Business Forum is not able to get the sort of access those big corporations can. I think most people generally agree that big corporations already wield far too much power and influence over politics. Bob Brown, when advocating for a national anticorruption commission way back in 2009, wrote:
The current political culture in Australia decrees that if you hand a minister $10,000 in a paper bag marked ''for you'' in return for a talk about your business plans, it is a bribe. But if you hand the $10,000 to a party official to sit next to the minister at dinner and discuss your business plans, that is OK.
In recent years, the fossil fuel industry has donated millions of dollars to both major parties, including $670,000 to the coalition and $470,000 to Labor in 2020-21. According to the Australian Democracy Network's report on state capture, this roughly even spread of donations to both sides of politics is a major red flag, suggesting that the fossil fuel industry are comfortable that, no matter which party is in power, their interests will be taken care of. At a very minimum, we need to end cash-for-access meetings, ban all corporate donations, crack down on lobbying and end the revolving door between politicians and their staff and industry jobs.
While the National Anti-Corruption Commission is a crucial and important step in tackling what are often systemic problems of corruption and malpractice, in both federal and state politics, the other big problem at the moment, which this bill still does not address, is the often perfectly legal—under our current laws—ways that big corporations influence the political process, to a degree that ordinary people do not have access to. That is a major problem.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:15): The National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2020 has been a long time coming, and I'm absolutely delighted that we're at this point now. A national anticorruption commission is something that has been called for long and loudly from my community. I thought it might be worth reflecting back on how this started and why we have got where we have today.
For us, it goes back to a commitment in 2018. That commitment was because the community was disaffected. It didn't have confidence in the integrity of, quite frankly, some of the people who sit in this place and some of the people who work around this place. More importantly, it didn't have confidence that decisions were being made in the best interests of Australians. So we were very pleased in January 2018 to make that decision.
I think we all know that there was a commitment on both sides, but today demonstrates that only one side of this parliament, those of us who are now in government, actually had enough commitment to follow through on the promises that we made.
One thing that I think was key in how this process has happened is that we didn't say, 'Here's a bill; take it or leave it'. What we said to people was, 'Here it is; we are happy to work through and discuss things.' It is really notable that we've agreed with all six recommendations of the report of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. We have prepared government amendments to this bill that will be put to this place, and they include a few key things. One is that they'll extend protections to people who are assisting a journalist in their work as a journalist from being compelled to identify an informant or provide information that would assist to ascertain an informant's identity. This matters to me, having been a journalist in the early part of my career. We need to ensure that protections like that are available.
Another amendment expressly provides that the commission will be able to begin an investigation on their own initiative. I think that will give people confidence that there's a real separation in terms of how it works. Being an independent organisation is key to not just its effectiveness but the trust that people have in it. After all, this is what this is about: we are restoring trust in a system in which multiple decisions get made all the time that affect people's lives, that improve their community. It will mean the system is accountable for how those decisions are made.
One of the other amendments that will be put will require that the commissioner to advise a person of the outcome of a corruption investigation if the commissioner has investigated the conduct of that person and has formed the opinion, or made a finding, that the person has not engaged in corrupt conduct. We'll be very pleased to put those amendments to the bill. As I say, I think that reflects a genuine willingness on this side of the House to see a piece of legislation that has wide support across the parliament, because this is something that we want to see sustained. We are the last jurisdiction to have an anticorruption commission; the states are way ahead of us. That has allowed us to look at what has worked most effectively in the states, to look at some of the concerns there might be about the operation and to come to a very-well-thought-through piece of legislation. I want to commend the Attorney-General for the work he has done. He has long held a commitment around this, and I know he will be very pleased to see this debate progressing as this sitting week goes on.
I should also note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights looked at this legislation, and the government has agreed in part to the first six recommendations that that committee made and notes the final recommendation. There was a third scrutiny of this legislation, from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Again, the government agrees with six of the eight recommendations—that's been updated in the explanatory memorandum—and notes the two other recommendations.
Let's look at where we are. We have a bill that is amended because of our commitment to legislate a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. We said we'd do it by the end of the year; I know there were people who thought it couldn't be done, but this shows our willingness to work hard, consult in a detailed way and progress things—not sit on them but make them happen. The Albanese government has been committed to integrity, honesty and accountability from day 1. This is a cornerstone piece of legislation for us. This is a cornerstone to restoring public trust and strengthening the standards of integrity in the federal government sphere.
The bill gives full effect to the design principles taken to the federal election. We knew in the lead-up to the federal election what it needed to have, and we've stayed true to that. It also draws on the best elements of the state and territory anticorruption commissions and laws.
I just want to reflect back on the lead-up to the election and the sorts of things people said to me about how significant and important having this piece of legislation and creating the National Anti-Corruption Commission was. Jade, from Kurrajong Heights, said to me—and this picks up themes that were totally consistent: 'I am writing to let you know how important the establishment of an anticorruption commission is, and that it is past due. The decline in the faith of our democratically elected leaders has diminished, in my opinion, over the last few years. I am disgusted by some areas of the press who support the actions of so many in the federal government. From my perspective, it's important for our parliament to be open and transparent.' That reflects the view that people felt there was not sufficient transparency. Jan, from South Windsor, says: 'I am absolutely in favour of a federal ICAC which has teeth and is retrospective.' Then we have Neroli, from Katoomba, who says: 'Everyone I know supports a strong federal integrity commission, and not the watered-down version proposed by the previous government.'
Hearing people say they are actually having conversations about it—in my many years as a journalist and then working in business before coming into politics, I have never heard an integrity commission be discussed as much as it has been in the last couple of years, and that is partly because of the performance of the previous government. That was picked up by Bruce, from Lawson, who said to me: 'The appalling performance of the previous government reinforced to the broad community how an integrity commission is vital to a healthy, functional democracy.' He saw that it was critical that, given we have one government, we take the opportunity to make a lasting improvement on the good government of our country for many years to come, and that's exactly what this bill will do.
Let's just go through some of the details of it. It provides the commission with broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corruption or corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. It has the power to investigate ministers; parliamentarians and their staff; statutory office holders; employees of all government entities; contractors; and contracted service providers. It will have the discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals from anyone—from anyone. It will be able to investigate both criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct, and conduct occurring before or after its establishment. So there are those key principles that we committed to.
Defining 'corrupt conduct' is central to the commission's jurisdiction, and it is consistent with the key elements of existing definitions at the state and territory level and in the Commonwealth's Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. The definition encompasses conduct by a public official that involves an abuse of office, a breach of public trust or misuse of information. It also includes conduct by any person that adversely affects the honest or impartial exercise of a Commonwealth public official's functions. As I said, we've accepted the joint standing committee's recommendations that 'corruption of any other kind' will be removed from the bill, and we're very confident that the amended definition of 'corrupt conduct' will enable the commission to effectively investigate any form of serious or systemic corrupt conduct that's referred to it. Other conduct that could adversely affect public administration, such as external fraud, will continue to be dealt with by existing integrity commissions, so this will add rather than take away.
The commissioner will have a full suite of powers similar to those of a royal commission. The commissioner will be able to use these powers to undertake an investigation if they are of the opinion that it could involve serious or systemic corrupt conduct. Hearings are a key part of it. The commissioner will be able to hold public hearings if satisfied that this is in the public interest and that exceptional circumstances justify doing so. The default position is that hearings will be held in private. Reporting at the end of the investigation will provide transparency and also support the commission's prevention and education function, because that is another key part of this. To be able to educate in order to prevent corruption is really key. It's one thing to catch it afterwards, but to really do something constructive for the sake of our democracy is to be able to educate and prevent.
The commissioner will be able to make findings of corrupt conduct but not of criminal liability. Criminal liability can only be determined by a court. So this legislation respects those existing jurisdictions. The commissioner will be required to provide procedural fairness by ensuring that those who are subject to a critical finding, opinion or recommendation in a report are afforded an opportunity to respond. And, as I've said, the commissioner would be required to notify a person of the outcome of a corruption investigation if they've investigated and have formed the opinion or made the finding that the person has not engaged in corrupt conduct. That is really important for people to be able to draw a line under that sort of investigation.
I want to talk a little bit, in the time that I have, about the prevention and education functions. The commission has a mandate to undertake corruption prevention and education functions. This includes undertaking public inquiries to examine corruption risks and vulnerabilities and the measures that are there to prevent corruption. So the commission will really be able to look at what is in place and see if that is effective enough. The commission will provide guidance and information to support the public sector so that they clearly understand the concept of corrupt conduct and are able to identify and address vulnerabilities. This work will be informed by the insights the commissioner draws from the investigations that the commission undertakes and the intelligence that it is gathering.
I'm going to finish by speaking about the independence of this organisation, which is fundamental to it being a credible organisation within the broader community. The independence of the commission is going to be secured in a number of ways. It will be able to conduct investigations on its own initiative or in response to referrals. Agency heads will be required to report any corruption issue in their agency to the commission if they suspect it could be serious or systemic. The appointment of the commissioners and deputy commissioners will be subject to approval by the parliamentary joint committee, and the appointees will have security of tenure comparable to a federal judge. We're very confident that these measures and fundamental elements are going to change this country for the better. I look forward to it having wide support in this parliament.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:30): I rise in support of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. It's been a long road—countless motions, bills and press conferences—so I am so grateful that we are finally able to debate a national anticorruption commission bill in this place and that we are likely only weeks away from legislation passing and hopefully becoming law.
I was in this place when the former government said that they would introduce an integrity commission. It didn't happen, and the Australian people grew frustrated and tired of waiting. What a missed opportunity that was. I'm delighted to see that, during this parliament, the Australian community's trust may be restored. This is an important time for this to happen, and we know that we can do better in representing our electorates and the national interest, not self-interest or the interest of those who donate the most. As I've said before, we need to be able to make our decisions in the light and demonstrate to our communities that those decisions are supported by sound governance.
I'd like to acknowledge the former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan. Cathy blazed a trail, as she did on many fronts, and she introduced the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 into this place. It's something that she worked on for months to create, and I remember sitting right here, maybe a couple of rows back, and Cathy saying, 'This is about us being our best selves'. Since that time, the 45th Parliament, I think it's fair to say that we, as a House of Representatives crossbench, have persisted and kept the pressure on two governments now. I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work that's been done, with respect to this bill, by the joint committee. They've worked hard to review this bill and to make suggestions to government for improvements.
I do remember, though, signing the transparency charter in the 45th Parliament in April 2019. It was signed by the member for Clark and many good senators that are no longer here, including Tim Storer, Rex Patrick and Stirling Griff. It was about signing on to ideals and making a pledge around transparency values, and seeing the words of that charter's mission now in this piece of legislation is incredibly important, I think. In many instances, parliaments and governments legislate top-down, telling people what should be done and making high-level policy decisions which impinge on and ultimately, we hope, improve people's lives. But it has been a groundswell of support from the people which has led the movement for a national integrity commission, and this has consistently been a key priority in my electorate. I thank every person who has called, written to me or talked to my team and said, 'Don't forget this, Rebekha. We need to make sure this happens.'
I congratulate the government on working quickly to develop this bill after many years of discussion in the community and in this place. I look forward to the new commission being established and to what it can achieve in helping ensure that we are all our best selves in this 47th Parliament and parliaments to come. Many organisations have contributed to the consultation on the bill that's before us today, and I'd like to thank the teams at Transparency International Australia and the Centre of Public Integrity, among others, for their engagement with me and my team.
While it would, in my opinion, benefit from some further amendments—which I will speak further to—including amendments I'm putting forward myself, I rise to support this bill. The commission will be able to investigate serious and systemic corrupt conduct by a public official, including if it occurred before the commencement of this act. The commission will have a broader perspective and educative role in relation to corruption, and it will be overseen by the parliamentary joint committee and an inspector, who will be tasked with investigating any serious and systemic corruption issues and complaints relating to the commission itself. The commission, in my view, has the basics to enable it to function well for the most part, with strong investigative powers, including its own motion, and measures in the bill to help ensure that the commission is resourced properly to fulfil its purpose, functions and tasks. And that's key. It must be resourced.
That said, for the commission to have real teeth, a number of small measures could improve upon the bill as introduced in this parliament. While Transparency International Australia have welcomed the proposed clarification and simplification of the definition of 'corrupt conduct', compared with most previous Australian precedents in sound corruption prevention, education and integrity-building functions afforded the commission, it has communicated some concerns regarding the bill as drafted. Similarly, the Centre for Public Integrity states that the NACC bill, as it's known, proposes an integrity commission which will be fit for purpose in almost all material respects but nonetheless retains concerns in a number of key respects.
Many of these concerns have been reflected by amendments moved, most of which I intend to support as practical measures to make this bill the best it can be. Firstly, the definition of 'corruption' needs to capture the conduct of third parties, such as lobbyists, companies and the like, and attempts to corrupt public administration. The commission should be able to investigate anyone's improper conduct that has potential to sway public officials, not just the conduct of public officials themselves. Key stakeholders have expressed the view that excluding third parties from the definition of 'corrupt conduct' would be a significant omission and inconsistent with all Australian jurisdictions' anticorruption commissions except those of Western Australia and Tasmania.
A number of changes that are canvassed in the amendments before this place could further enhance the independence of the commission from government. These include requiring the agreement of two non-government members in the majority when making appointments of the commission's key office holders and measures to improve budget transparency and oversight to ensure that the future commission is adequately resourced. Likewise, I support the amendments moved by the member for Warringah to make reporting provisions in this bill more robust and to require the commission to deal with corruption issues that may be referred to by either house of parliament.
Above all, however, the whistleblower protections remain incomplete under this bill and in law generally. Transparency International Australia have called for stronger shield laws to protect the rights of journalists not to identify their sources, as these laws remain too weak. They have called for an increased level of privilege in relation to warrants in matters involving journalism, given the public interest in journalism and the protection of private sources. I've recently called on the Attorney-General to review and improve existing inadequate protections and redress for whistleblowers and their legal counsel. While public undertakings have been given that whistleblower protections and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 will be considered next year, it's clear that the whistleblower protections in the bill are based on provisions from the Public Interest Disclosure Act that have shown themselves to be quite inadequate in recent years.
I've also circulated amendments in my name to improve requirements for statutory review of the operation of the act within a reasonable time frame. At present the bill provides for parliamentary committee functions including monitoring and reviewing the performance of the commissioner and the inspector and reporting of both houses of parliament and a number of other relevant functions but does not require a review of the act's operation. Nor does it set a time frame for conducting any such review. Instead, the statutory review provision, at clause 278, is broad enough to drive a truck through. Strengthening clause 278 would provide comfort if the parliamentary committee did not undertake a review of the operation of the act within its first five years. Review requirements are pivotal given the import of the commission's work. A statutory review provision with teeth will provide for minimum matters such a review must consider and report on. It would require that the person or persons conducting the review are at least as qualified as the commissioners themselves and that the report of the review is to be provided to the minister within 12 months of the review commencing. It would also require the minister to table the resulting report in both houses within 14 days, which I think is incredibly important, or to provide it to the presiding officer for circulation to all members if the House is not sitting during that period.
Overall, this represents a sound, practical improvement to the bill which will ensure that the operation of this vitally important legislation is properly reviewed before the end of its first five years. I have been calling for a national integrity commission with teeth since I was first elected over six years ago. We now have before us the most exciting opportunity of all to make sure this is done and done properly, and I commend this bill to the House.
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (10:41): I am very proud to speak in support of these very important bills, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022. One of the issues these bills deal with is integrity, which means confidence in the systems that run our country. We need to have absolute confidence that things are running for the betterment of the nation and not for the betterment of individuals, and that can be read into these bills. Recent years have shown significant erosion of trust between citizens and politicians, government, government agencies. By establishing the National Anti-Corruption Commission we hope to create a body that will make this government and future governments, government agencies, public servants et cetera better. Integrity should be above partisan politics.
The Australian people delivered a clear message at the last election that something was broken or not working quite right. It does not mean that things were not working right but that perception is a very dangerous perception to be out there, and we need to fix it. The perception was that something is broken, and the people want it fixed. I am very proud to be a part of this government that is delivering this bill to its House, which is the result of us listening to Australians.
One of the most common issues raised with me over the past few years was the need for a National Anti-Corruption Commission. People are crying out for a body that ensures the integrity of parliament and government. Such a commission is vital to help people regain that trust in our institutions and the people who work within them. This, after all, is the basis of a healthy democracy. They are the pillars of our democracy. Even though Australia punches above its weight in the different monitors of corruption around the world—we would be one of the countries on the lowest scale—it doesn't mean that we can't do better.
This legislation is the single biggest reform to the Commonwealth integrity framework that we have seen in decades. It also honours the commitment that we made to the Australian people during the last election campaign. Shamefully, the Commonwealth is the last Australian jurisdiction to establish an anticorruption commission, but this delay has allowed us to draw the best elements of the different systems that have been set up in the state and territory models. We believe we have reached the right balance to ensure the integrity of Australia's institutions.
These bills will empower the commission to investigate and report on serious systemic corruption in the Commonwealth and public sector; importantly, will refer evidence of criminal misconduct for prosecution; and will undertake education and prevention activities. On this side of the House we're committed to integrity, honesty and accountability in government. This legislation is a cornerstone of our commitment and our agenda, and it will restore, as I said, public trust and strengthen standards of integrity in our federal government.
The bill provides the commission with broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. The commission will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians, staff, statutory officeholders, public servants, employees of all government entities and government contractors. It will have discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals. It will be able to investigate both criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct and conduct occurring before or after its establishment.
The definition of corrupt conduct is central to the commission's jurisdiction. It is consistent with key elements of existing definitions at the state and territory level and in the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. This definition includes conduct by a public official that involves an abuse of office, breach of public trust, misuse of information or corruption of any kind, and it also includes conduct by any person that adversely affects the honest or impartial exercise of a Commonwealth public official's functions.
The commissioner will have powers similar to a royal commissioner. The commissioner will be able to use these powers to undertake an investigation into corrupt conduct if the commissioner believes it could involve serious or systemic corrupt conduct, and to determine whether an allegation could be serious or systemic corruption the commissioner will be able to undertake preliminary inquiries. In order to do this the commissioner will have powers to compel the production of information.
The commissioner will also be able to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and when satisfied that it's in the public interest. The default position is that hearings will be held in private, and this is very important because we need to balance the public interest with other potential negative impacts. After completing an investigation the commissioner will be required to prepare a report setting out their findings and recommendations, and they will be able to make findings of corrupt conduct but not of criminal liability. Criminal liability can be determined only by a court of law.
Reports will be made public if the matters they deal with are already in the public domain. They'll also be made public when it's determined to be in the public interest. Reports will be required to be tabled in each house of the parliament where a public hearing has been held during the investigation, and the commissioner will be able to publish public versions of reports when satisfied, again, that it's in the public interest to do so and if procedural fairness requirements are met. The commissioner will be required to provide procedural fairness by ensuring that those who are the subject of a critical finding, opinion or recommendation in a report are afforded an opportunity to respond.
They'll also have an important mandate to undertake corruption prevention and educational functions, and this includes undertaking public inquiries to examine corruption risks, vulnerabilities and measures to prevent corruption. The commission will provide guidance and information to support the public sector to understand the concept of corrupt conduct and to identify and address where there may be vulnerabilities to corruption. The commission will also engage in broader public education about its role, corruption risks and avenues to report corrupt conduct.
A cornerstone of this commission will be its absolute independence, and this will be secured in a number of ways. The commission will be able to conduct investigations on its own initiative or in response to referrals or allegations from different sources. Agency heads will be required to report any corruption issue in their agency to the commission if they suspect it could be serious or systemic. The appointment of the commissioners and deputy commissioners will be subject to approval by parliamentary joint committee. The commissioner's appointment will be for a single term of five years and deputy commissioner appointments for up to two terms of five years each. The appointees will have security of tenure, of course, comparable to a federal judge.
The legislation enables the parliamentary joint committee to review and make recommendations on the sufficiency of the NACC's budget. The commission will be overseen by a parliamentary joint committee and an inspector. In addition to confirming appointments and reviewing the commission's budget, the committee's oversight role will include reviewing the commission's performance and its annual reports. The inspector will deal with any corruption issues arising in the commission and complaints about the commission.
The design of this commission is balanced, with strong safeguards to ensure that investigations do not cause undue reputational damage. This is very important, as we have seen from the experiences in other jurisdictions. In order to ensure this, hearings will be held in private unless there are exceptional circumstances and the commission is satisfied it is in the public interest to hold a hearing in public. Certain sensitive evidence will be received in private, in addition to a range of decisions the commissioner can make when appropriate.
This legislation will also provide very strong protection for whistleblowers and that's very important. This will include protection against adverse consequences, including criminal offences and immunities. Public officials making disclosures to the commission will also be protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. Similarly, the bill ensures that journalists are also appropriately protected. This includes an exemption from answering questions or providing information that would enable the identity of a source to be ascertained.
We have committed substantial funding, as we have heard, of $262 million over four years for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. We know that this funding will ensure the commission has the required staff and resources and the necessary capacity to undertake its very important and crucial work.
As I said, in recent years we've seen significant erosion of the confidence that the public has in politicians, in government agencies and in governments. Establishing this independent Anti-Corruption Commission will bring back some of that confidence. As I said earlier, creating this body will make this government and future governments better. Integrity is way above politics and partisan politics, and so it should be. We heard the message at the last election that people wanted an anti-corruption body established, an independent body, that would look into allegations and issues in a way that was above this place, in a way that no-one in this House had any say, in a way that no-one in the Public Service had any say, or any government agency—a totally independent body to investigate matters.
As I said earlier, I'm very proud to be commending this bill to the House because it was an integral part of our commitments when in opposition and also during the election campaign. On the other side of the House we had a government that had promised the voters of Australia that they would deliver a commission and they failed to do so over a period of nine years. I think it's very important, as a first step, in restoring confidence but also in ensuring that we have a body that will be above any interference from anyone, that would investigate serious corruption allegations and issues. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms TINK (North Sydney) (10:54): I rise today on behalf of the federal electorate of North Sydney, and as a proud member of the 47th Parliament who has actively campaigned for this historic piece of legislation, to speak on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. For many in North Sydney this opportunity has been too long in coming, with previous governments promising to introduce a federal integrity commission, yet failing to deliver. In this context, I congratulate the Attorney-General and the Albanese government for delivering so promptly and unequivocally on what the Australian people demanded at the recent election. It is easy to jump straight to criticisms or pointing out room for improvement, but I'd like to pause for just a moment to say: well done. This is a historic piece of reform.
It is true to say I was sent to this place by my community to ensure that just this piece of legislation was shepherded through the parliamentary system. The people of North Sydney want a better standard of politics. They want their trust in the federal political process restored, and they have believed for some time now that this would be encouraged, supported and in part realised through the establishment of a national integrity watchdog. North Sydney values politics done differently, even when it might appear to be against our best interests. You see, my seat has been the recipient of targeted funding which could be described as having a distinct whiff of pork about it.
Wedged between the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Luna Park, the North Sydney Olympic Pool has been a nationally recognised icon for over 84 years. In April 2019 the then Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg; and North Sydney's local MP announced a $10 million election commitment to contribute to the pool upgrade. On further investigation, it was uncovered that that $10 million was allocated for the Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream, which was created as a measure to remove barriers for women participating in sport in our regions, and to develop and upgrade community pools in remote and regional areas. Don't get me wrong; our pool is iconic, and it had been identified that some work was required. But it's hardly located in a regional or rural community. The ridiculous and discretionary nature of both this pre-election announcement and the final budget allocation was farcical and put to rest any idea that the process driving the then government's decision about where funding should be directed was anything other than some warped idea of 'winner takes all' and friends get all the benefits. In light of this story and many others just like it, it will come as no surprise, then, that the people of North Sydney, and indeed the majority of Australians, have lost faith in our democracy.
Over the years, cases of financial and funding rorts; sexual harassment, bullying and misconduct; and what appears to be blatant corruption have simply eroded people's trust in politicians and our political system. In a report released just yesterday by the Scanlon Foundation, when Australians were asked if they believed that the government in Canberra can be trusted to do the right thing all or most of the time, only 41 per cent agreed. This is down from 44 per cent last year and 56 per cent in the November 2020 period. This downward trajectory needs to be turned around, and it is the responsibility of those of us in this place to arrest the slide. As Democracy 2025 puts it:
Trust is the glue that facilitates collective action for mutual benefit.
If people can't trust that the government is acting with their best interests at heart, policies become less effective, people stop complying with decisions they don't like and, ultimately, democracy breaks down.
Australia Institute polling shows that nine in 10 Australians think there is corruption in federal politics, and the unfortunate truth is that this diminishing faith in our federal political system is not a new issue. For decades, representatives in this place and the other have been campaigning against the unchecked corruption of the major political parties. We have all too often seen breathtaking scandal, exorbitant rorts and extreme misbehaviour involving federal politicians and senior public servants. We know the Commonwealth government oversees billions of dollars in spending, from multibillion dollar defence procurement to funding for local sports facilities and commuter car parks. We've observed cases of ministers intervening in visas for au pairs, handing out grants to organisations that were barely established, and obscuring money in blind trusts. Sadly, these cases have usually been uncovered by the media, and in many instances the behaviour has gone unpunished.
But, whether there is or isn't corruption within our system, perceptions of its existence cost our economy and community not only in dollar terms—with some estimating a reduction in our GDP of four per cent, or $72.3 billion—but also fundamentally through the schism that is created in the very fabric that should sustain a confident society. There is nothing quite like being involved in a conversation with regular people from across your community who are lamenting the way their federal politics appear to have become so disconnected from their ambitions, their desires and their values. Their representatives just do not seem to represent them anymore. For me, that look—one which combines both disappointment and a hope for better—was one of the fundamental reasons that I agreed to run as an Independent candidate when my community asked me to.
Ultimately, rebuilding Australians' trust in politics is critical to our nation's long-term success. We urgently need to improve standards of behaviour and integrity in federal politics so that we have the foundations to achieve the fairer and more prosperous future we all want to see. The establishment and empowerment of this independent National Anti-Corruption Commission will go some way towards improving Australians' trust in democracy.
Throughout the development of the bill, many of us in this place have worked constructively with the government in good faith to ensure that the proposed commission meets community expectations. This has included advocating for statutory oversight mechanisms to protect the independence of the commission, budgetary protection, independence and funding transparency, the ability to launch own-motion investigations, funding for education and prevention to head corruption off at the pass, and an expansive jurisdiction over third parties. These issues have been advocated for for years and include lessons learnt from integrity bodies in states and territories.
One specific example of how the crossbench, supported by advocates and experts, has helped shape the final product we are now debating is the simple inclusion of the word 'integrity'. At the outset, the government seemed determined that the scope of this commission would be limited to corruption. Talk of an integrity commission was dismissed, but we chipped away at the idea and argued that it was vital that, for this reform to have maximum impact, the government not only play a role in preventing corruption but also promote a cultural shift which focuses on empowering those who are expected to uphold the highest degree of integrity to do just that. In the words of the minister then, 'This legislation now delivers the single biggest integrity reform this parliament has seen in decades.'
Importantly, this reform must be able to deliver this ambition regardless of who is in power at the time. Longevity and sustainability will ultimately be the key measures of success for this nation-changing reform. We must, as members of this 47th Parliament, ensure that we do the work now to enable this commission to be set up in a way that can withstand the political game playing that comes when party politics meets power. There are four key aspects of the bill that I believe warrant further discussion.
Firstly, I've heard from experts who advocate that transparent, public hearings are needed to help build public confidence in the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Under the proposed legislation, by default, the Anti-Corruption Commission hearings will be held in private unless the commissioner decides there are exceptional circumstances justifying a public hearing and that it is in the best interests to do so. I would argue that openness, not secrecy, should be the norm, and having more public hearings would strengthen the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Why? Because all of the evidence shows us that public hearings are more effective in exposing corruption because they bring forward more information and witnesses. Importantly, they would also improve the public's trust in government, as people would see the system working.
Under this legislation, the commissioner does have the power to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and if satisfied it is in the public interest to do so. The bill provides guidance to the commission in making these decisions, and I am satisfied that, with the strong independence of the commission that has been written into the bill, the commission will exercise these powers soundly and in the public interest.
That having being said, the political reality is that reform can require compromise. In my view, securing cross-party backing for the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission may mean that that compromise might need to take place in this House. I do not think, then, that on this point we should let perfect be the enemy of good, and, as such, I am prepared to accept the government's arguments as to why they are currently presenting the option of public hearings in this way. I also undertake to keep an open mind, however, and pay close attention to the statutory review process should it become evident in the early years of operation for the commission that the bar for exceptional standards is creating a yoke around the commissioner's neck rather than empowering them to make what they believe are the best decisions for the public good.
Secondly, we need a National Anti-Corruption Commission that will continue to deliver on its objectives no matter who is in power. To that end, it will be important to find ways to commit future governments to adequate funding for the National Anti-Corruption Commission as far as it is possible to do so.
I would propose, then, that the commission's budget should be allocated on a minimum of a five-year cycle, with the ability to obtain supplementary funding if needed. The independence of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be bolstered by requiring a multipartisan, balanced parliamentary joint committee to review its budget on an annual basis, and a dedicated secretariat resource will be essential to ensuring that the committee has the information it needs to perform its role. I expect that this capacity is something that should be built into the legislation.
Thirdly, whistleblowers must be protected as we introduce the new anticorruption laws. While in the longer term I'm reassured by the Attorney-General's commitment to review Australia's whistleblower protections, I believe that the provisions to protect whistleblowers from victimisation, harassment and other adverse actions are essential within this piece of legislation.
Lastly, I believe there's an opportunity to do something unprecedented in this place through the establishment of a truly independent commission by appointing majority non-government members to the parliamentary joint committee overseeing the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Why? Because, for this agency and an agency such as this to be beyond reproach, it must stand for and itself be accountable to that which is larger than any government of the day, and that is the entire parliament. There will always be powerful interests seeking to persuade the government of the day to downgrade the effectiveness of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and we need to ensure that as elected representatives we have the mechanism to watch the watchdog.
During this debate I've been a fierce advocate for the establishment of a multipartisan, balanced parliamentary joint committee to perform the role of oversight of a National Anti-Corruption Commission, and I commend the government for the inclusion of just such an independent committee in the bill. However, in the bill's current form the committee's independence has been compromised. The requirement that the chair be a member of the government and for the chair to hold the casting vote over commission appointments is a serious limitation.
I would therefore like to see the bill amended in two ways. The first of these is an amendment to ensure that the chair of the committee is a non-government member of parliament. The second is an amendment to ensure that the approval of appointments to the commission are subject to a supermajority. I note in the joint select committee's advisory report that the evidence provided by a range of expert witnesses supported just such a proposal. I also note that coalition committee members indicated that a supermajority vote in these circumstances would be desirable, as bipartisan confidence in the positions of commissioner and inspector is essential.
As I said earlier, there will always be powerful interests seeking to persuade the government of the day to downgrade the effectiveness of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, both in the immediate future and over the longer term. If this government can bring itself to truly place faith in the institution it is helping to create then the departure from tradition is warranted and would be seen as a historic and courageous stance taken by a government that is prepared to lead rather than to control. While the establishment and empowerment of a strong, independent national anticorruption regime will go some way towards rebuilding community confidence in our federal system, we must recognise that this reform alone will not bring us to the fullness of the democracy we can be. Indeed, it is arguably only the first step, and it should in no way be seen as a replacement for the fundamental cultural reform that I believe the people of Australia wish to see proceed at this national level.
On behalf of the people of North Sydney, I commend the National Anti-Corruption Commission bills to the House. I sincerely hope that this legacy piece of reform will outlive my time in this House as well as your own. Thank you.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:08): When we vote on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, Australia will finally have a powerful National Anti-Corruption Commission. But the only reason for that is that Australians elected a Labor government. Let's be very clear. If the Liberals had their way there would not be a real National Anti-Corruption Commission. They spent years ducking and weaving, trying every trick in the book to make sure Australia would not have a proper NACC. They even came up with a con trick last term, which we had to endure day after day, of waving around a great big piece of draft legislation, pretending they wanted to act.
But that version would have been worse than useless. It would have been a protection racket for government and members of parliament, because the commission could have initiated investigations into MPs only with the permission of the government. It was truly ridiculous. The dead giveaway that they didn't mean it was that they refused to actually introduce that draft bill into the parliament, because they knew the parliament would have amended it to make it tougher. Former Prime Minister Morrison should, in my view, apologise for his dithering, delay and sneaky behaviour, pretending he was going to act but refusing to ever do so. For nearly a decade, while the Liberals were in office, to our great national shame delaying the introduction of an anticorruption commission, Australia fell from seventh place in 2012 to 18th place in 2021 on Transparency International's global corruption perception index. The main reason for this slide was the Liberals' shameful failure to act.
The government is honouring its election problem with this bill, which is on track to pass by the end of the year as promised. The Leader of the Opposition sniffed the political breeze and changed tack, recognising this legislation was going to pass the parliament one way or another; indeed, some of his own members would have crossed the floor to vote with Labor. So he did the politically convenient thing and decided to back the legislation. This is cynical but admittedly very welcome because I believe it is important for our country that this reform pass the parliament unanimously with the support of all members. Thanks to the good work of the committee chair, Senator Linda White, and the deputy chair, Dr Helen Haines, we are on track to do that—with the exception, of course, of One Nation, who oppose an anticorruption commission of any sort; let that sink in! I commend the committee for a unanimous report recommending that the bill pass with only minor changes. It's only natural there are different views, as we've heard, on matters of detail in the bill; the amendments allow for those debates. In the scheme of things, these are minor matters; the core of the bill and the government's model has been agreed.
When this bill passes, as it will, the National Anti-Corruption Commission can then be established by law. A truly independent commissioner will be appointed, requiring the endorsement of a joint parliamentary committee. The commissioner will have the full suite of powers akin to those of a standing royal commission. As a society, we should be very clear on what that phrase means; I just want to make this point because it contextualises the remarks I am going to make. These are very extreme powers which mean all the ordinary protections built into the legal system, hard-won in our democratic society over hundreds of years, do not apply. The right to silence will be gone. People can be legally forced to answer questions that may incriminate them or others, unlike in ordinary courts. Legal professional privilege is overridden. People's right to communicate in private with their lawyer is abrogated. Ordinary rules of evidence and basic procedural fairness are overridden. We should not legislate the withdrawal of these powers lightly. This is indeed a significant moment because the commissioner can use those coercive powers to investigate serious or systemic corruption. It's worth remembering that the Commonwealth is the last jurisdiction—a little embarrassing—to implement an anticorruption commission in this country. The small upside to that is we've had the opportunity to learn from the state and territory commissions.
The definition of 'corrupt conduct' is consistent with key elements of existing definitions at the state and territory level. It encompasses conduct by a public official that involves abuse of office, breach of public trust or misuse of information. I just want to make an observation about the scope which not all will agree with, particularly the more sanctimonious amongst us: misconduct is not and should not be labelled or pursued as corruption. We need to think and reflect on that. A breach of a code of conduct such as forgetting to declare a bottle of wine someone gave you, or a conflict of interest, or speaking rudely to someone, or even bullying, is not corruption; it is misconduct. Such breaches are unacceptable and should not go unremarked or unpunished, but they should not be pursued using the resources and powers of a standing royal commission, suspending all ordinary rights and procedures, or mislabelled as corruption. To do so would dilute the focus of the NACC on pursuing serious and systemic corruption, be a misallocation of resources and is simply wrong. Misconduct is misconduct. Breaches of codes of conduct are not always corruption. We should reserve the label of corruption in our society for genuinely serious or systemic activities, not weaponise or diminish it through too broad an application. To be labelled as corrupt can genuinely end a career, and, tragically, has caused people to take their own life or attempt to, even when unproven. In workplaces across the country ordinary breaches of codes of conduct may not be sacking offences and are not labelled as corruption, and the NACC should adopt a commonsense proportionate approach with respect to the public sector.
With regard to the many questions about where the NACC will focus and whether the former government will be found to be corrupt: specific allegations and instances are a matter for the commissioner, not for parliament or politicians, to dictate. The Attorney-General has wisely refused to engage in specifics, and so should other MPs. Time will tell, though, if we look at other jurisdictions, but as a general rule I would suggest: follow the money.
Contrary to popular belief in some quarters—social media, for sure—I do not believe that most corruption will be found in the parliament or amongst MPs. We're amongst the most scrutinised people in Australia. Outside of executive government, MPs are not actually public decision-makers in any event. It's far more likely that where we see corruption revealed will be in areas such as procurement, where people stand to make money from government decisions. In the Commonwealth sphere that would likely include defence procurement and sustainment and big service delivery areas, such as the NDIS.
I will make a brief comment on one matter of scope and approach that still troubles me regarding the activities of some state and territory ICACs, which I hope we will not see replicated at a Commonwealth level as the commission goes about its work. The concern is based on private discussions I have had over many years with academics and experts involved in designing state and territory ICACs. It relates, if you like, to the tension right at the heart of our Westminster system of government, whereby cabinets are rightly expected to act in the public interest, but, in doing so, are a place where political debates and considerations are addressed and resolved. This is not illegitimate. Balancing public policy considerations in a genuine search for the public interest alongside political realities and considerations, including the electoral implications of decisions and judgements about community confidence and the ability to maintain public support for causes of action, is not and should not be labelled as corruption.
Taking account of the political impact of decisions, community reaction, is part of the job of the government. We need to ensure that corruption commissions have a sufficient understanding of how decisions are made and how governments work and that they're not only staffed by lawyers. With the greatest of respect to lawyers and judges, many of them have never had to make significant or complex public policy decisions or, frankly, managed anything much aside from their secretary. I trust the commissioner will staff the commission with a good mix of skills, including people with experience in public administration and public service.
Similarly, engaging with and within your political party, or indeed your community movement if you're an Independent—the people who support and volunteer and contribute to your efforts—is not corruption. Political parties are legitimate and important institutions in our democracy, regulated by legislation. They're community organisations which bring people together with similar values, not always the same. They choose people to stand for public office—I was looking at you, Member for Bass, but trying not to—and hold them accountable in important ways. They're a vehicle for policy development, debate and campaigning. While Independents are very fashionable at present and politics is not a team game, government has to be. I'll always speak up in defence of the important role that real parties and their tens of thousands of members play in democracies. Just to be clear, I said 'real' not to have a go at the Independents at all, just to have a go at sham parties like Palmer and One Nation and a plethora of weird, wacky Victorian parties we've seen spring up in the upper house.
But communities who elect us expect us to deliver results, and part of that, for the significant majority of representatives, means you have to engage in your political party to get support for policy positions or things that your community wants. We're all ultimately just one vote here; we've got to work with other people. So I think it's completely absurd that the Victorian IBAC expressed shock, horror that an MP's staff member may be asked to attend a local branch meeting, as that is a private interest—which is in no way to defend the extreme or egregious behaviour of Adem Somyurek and his cronies. But it is a ridiculous proposition that it is okay for MPs or their staff to attend numerous local community organisations but not a local party meeting to listen and provide a report and debate policy positions. Such activity is legitimate, and it serves an important part of a healthy democracy.
Similarly, it should be entirely legitimate that MPs develop policy and advocate to advance issues within their party. That's what my community expects me to do here, as I am the community's representative in the parliament and the party, not the party's representative in the community. I would expect the Independents feel the same way. Such activity should not and must not be labelled as corruption, and I trust the national commission will do a more sophisticated job than some of the state and territory commissions in dealing with these issues. The federal parliament is not intending to do away with the role of parties or the proper roles of cabinet government to reconcile the public interest with political considerations.
The issue of whether hearings should be public or private has been the subject of significant debate and controversy in formulating this bill, as is appropriate. A balance needs to be struck between transparency and public accountability on the one hand and the rights of individuals on the other to a fair hearing, to natural justice and to not have their reputations unfairly destroyed—remembering, as I said, that all of the ordinary protections that apply in a public court of law do not apply in these kinds of commissions, because all your rights are suspended. I firmly believe this bill gets the balance right. I'm not resiling from saying that—not to be popular on social media. The commissioner will have discretion to decide when hearings should be held in public. We're not talking about politicians here; overwhelmingly, we'll be talking about good, decent people who are not guilty of corruption but who have to answer questions as the commission does its work. Every citizen, no matter their role, is entitled to fairness and a presumption of innocence. That is an old-fashioned concept in the trial by media these days. The powers of the NACC mean that ordinary protections afforded in courts do not apply, as legal rights are suspended. The unfortunate reality now is that, in the media and social media age, simply being hauled before a corruption commission can destroy any person's reputation and career or even cost them their life, if innocent. Hence the presumption that hearings are conducted in private, unless the commission determines otherwise, is reasonable.
I wish to record my personal grief and sadness at the passing of former Casey mayor Amanda Stapledon, a woman I knew well. Amanda was a Liberal and a thoroughly decent, caring Christian woman. We worked terrifically well together, and she was a damn fine human being. She was in local government for the right reasons and always focused on the community in every conversation we had. She fell in with the wrong crowd, and, in my view, did some naive things. Tragically, she reached the point where she concluded she could not see a way through and the rational thing to do was to take her own life. I dearly wish this was otherwise. I understand from reports this was driven by her love and her care for her disabled child and a belief that this was the best way to provide for her child, rather than spend what little money she had on legal bills.
Amanda's story has seared in my mind the need to afford procedural fairness to people accused of corruption or simply engaged in the commission's work and who may not even be accused, and reserve public hearings for times when the commission has established its case and there's a genuinely needed deterrence effect in public hearings. Ultimately, this bill ensures that all corruption must be reported in public, as is necessary and of course appropriate.
It has been amusing and instructive to watch the hyperbole and hypocrisy of much of the media on this question, as they earnestly proclaim that everything must always be conducted in public, and that to not do so is to cover up corruption. This is nonsense. Without betraying specific confidences, in the multiple conversations I've had over months with journalists on this question—they didn't say it was off the record, so I'm allowed to say this without attribution—they privately all admitted that the government's position is entirely correct and that there is no way anyone could get fair coverage in their newspapers or television shows if all hearings were conducted in public. That's what they say in private. We've seen in recent weeks in the Victorian election how incomplete inquiries can be weaponised effectively.
In closing, I note that this bill, in my view, is necessary but not sufficient. It's not the answer to all of the integrity questions that pervade the public sector or public life. I do believe we can look to other jurisdictions for additional safeguards—for example, the British Committee on Standards in Public Life. It's been going since the moat scandal, and it's actually proven to be a good institution which considers broader issues of integrity. There are lessons we can consider from the efforts in the UK to improve the ministerial code of conduct—breaches of which should not usually be termed as corruption.
This bill is a critical step forward to improving integrity in the Australian public sector and public life, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (11:23): To give credit where it is due, I commend the government for progressing the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is a good decision, and it's very pleasing to see the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 now tabled and being debated and hopefully passed by both houses of parliament in this sitting fortnight. Of course, it's long overdue, and there are countless examples of alleged corruption in recent years, which have very much turbocharged the public's call for some sort of federal anticorruption agency. I should add that they're not all historic cases. Some are very real and some are very current.
I was shocked just yesterday to see within the Australian Financial Review some very good investigative work by the journalist Liam Walsh, who has discovered that documentary evidence of what I spoke about on Monday, regarding widespread fraud within the Australian coal industry, was held in the office of the resources minister during the previous government. The allegations of corruption are not historic; they're real and they're live. In fact, when the Anti-Corruption Commission is set up, I think that's one of the first things I might refer to it—to find out why documentary evidence of widespread fraud was in the possession of a minister in the previous government and that minister did nothing about it. Mind you, even if there isn't evidence of corruption, even if we think all is well, there is still a need for some sort of federal anticorruption agency because only by the very existence of the agency—the knowledge that there is a cop on the beat—can we have confidence that there's not corruption that we're not aware of simmering under the surface.
I echo the concerns of many of my colleagues about some aspects of the bill before us. Of course, probably the most talked about deficiency in the bill comes to the issue of the threshold for public hearings. I am firmly of the view that the threshold is much too high, and the words 'exceptional circumstances' really should be removed from the bill. It should be left to the head of the NACC to decide when it's appropriate or not appropriate. As noted by eminent jurist Stephen Charles AO KC, the 'exceptional circumstances' threshold for public hearings will hamper the proper airing of corruption, as potential new witnesses cannot come forward with additional information if they are unaware an investigation or hearing is occurring. For example, the additional and compelling evidence about Gladys Berejiklian would not have been discovered if the matter had been heard in private. The absence of a solid definition of 'exceptional circumstances' will also likely subject the commission to lengthy court challenges, thereby delaying hearings and investigations.
The government has contended that the 'exceptional circumstances' threshold is included to prevent damage to a person's reputation. However, considering the commissioner may already consider such factors in determining whether something meets the public interest threshold, under section 73(3), the additional 'exceptional circumstances' threshold for public hearings is unnecessary. Moreover, it hinders public confidence that the Anti-Corruption Commission is a transparent and accountable body. It is worth noting that polling by the Australia Institute shows, clearly, that the overwhelming majority of Australians support the NACC being able to conduct public hearings in broader circumstances. I speak for a lot of people when I go to that issue. I know it's a concern shared by many of my colleagues, especially those on the crossbench.
The other deficiency is getting less attention, but it is important nonetheless—that is, the lack of whistleblower protections. The bill essentially replicates protections from the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, but we know, and the government has already acknowledged, that the PID Act 2013 is seriously deficient and urgently in need of reform. Why we would cut and paste out of a deficient act into this bill surprises me. Here's hoping that, as we race to improve Australia's whistleblower protection legislation, what will be the NACC Act by that stage is promptly and thoroughly amended itself.
Now, of course, an anticorruption body is very important in itself, but it is only one of a group of essential building blocks for cleaning up governance, public administration and politics in this country. Unless we create all of the building blocks and put them together, we won't have an effective solution. This bill before us is fabulous, despite its deficiencies, and it's great to see that it will be realised, but the government has to move very quickly to the other building blocks, which are: whistleblower protection; media freedom laws; and political donation reform—all of which the government has said it will act on in this parliament. But, as always, the devil will be in the detail about how effectively they do that.
When it comes to whistleblower reforms, I would bring the parliament's attention to a report released just this morning—I note that the member for Bass was there at the launch with me. It is a report by Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia, Protecting Australia's whistleblowers: the federal roadmap. Now, this is indeed a roadmap—a blueprint, if you like—of what needs to be done to not only provide effective protection for whistleblowers but also allow them to ventilate their concerns, effectively, both in the public sector and the private sector. This is the blueprint. I wish the Attorney-General could have been there at the launch this morning, but at least I know he's got a copy of this for when he goes through the process of reviewing the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the relevant sections of the Corporations Act—and now the relevant section of what will be the NACC Act soon. Look at this. It's no good saying the Moss review of 2016 provides the blueprint, because some of that now is out of date already. It's six years old. That is the blueprint.
I also have referred to media freedom laws. If we're going to get rid of corruption in this country, among other things we need whistleblowers to identify corruption and to speak up, but then we need the media to give voice and publicity to those concerns raised by the whistleblowers. That will do a number of things. It will inform the public, especially when there aren't public hearings going on, and it will also provide some protection to the whistleblowers themselves. If I can rather indulgently reflect, nearly 20 years after the start of the Iraq War, on my own whistleblowing experience, it was probably only the extensive media coverage that I got instantly which gave me comfort personally and also protected me from the wrath of a very angry government. They very quickly would have come to the conclusion that they could hardly jail me, because I would have become a political prisoner in the circumstances. So that is the importance of media freedom laws.
Of course, donation reform is the other essential building block. I moved a private member's bill earlier this year that sought to really clean up political donations, and I was disappointed that it didn't receive the support of either the previous government or the previous opposition, the current government. Well, I had to put my trust in the Attorney-General when he told me in recent months that they will move on this. The sorts of things that are required when it comes to political donation reform obviously include a much lower disclosure threshold. The figure being used often is maybe about $1,000. For any donation over $1,000—either a single donation or when the sum of small donations reaches $1,000—that should be disclosed, and that should be done virtually instantly—perhaps up on the AEC website or by some other electronic means so that it can be disclosed almost straightaway.
We also need a cap on donations. Not only should we lower the threshold for when donations are disclosed but we should limit the amount of money that any one donor, be it an individual or some sort of entity, can donate to any candidate or any political party, because, as my old friend Nick Xenophon used to say, if someone donates you $1,000, they support you; if they donate you $100,000, they've bought you. I think that's a truth. No-one hands over huge donations without expecting a return on that investment, and they often get a good return on that investment. So let's bring down to a sensible level the total amount of money that any donor can donate to any politician, candidate or party during any election cycle—and that's another point. Donations should be measured over the election cycle, not one at a time.
Also, we could broaden the definition of a donation. At the moment, you can have these extra entities—let's say something like Clubs NSW—that might run a political campaign that favours one political party or the other. Well, I would say that anything that materially benefits a candidate, a politician or a party should be treated as a political donation and recorded as a donation, both by what I am now calling the donor and by the candidate, politician or party that is materially benefiting from that expenditure.
In talking about expenditure, why don't we, when we're looking up political donations, also limit the amount of money that any of us can spend when we're campaigning? It was just downright immoral for Clive Palmer to spend $100 million to buy one Senate seat. I don't think you'll find anyone in Australia, apart from one senator and one Clive Palmer, who would think that that was an ethical way to spend that sort of money.
We could also have prohibited donors. Obviously tobacco and liquor, but what about the gambling industry or the fossil fuel industry or the sorts of big donors that are going around at the moment getting a good return on their investment—a very, very good return on their investment? In fact, that might help to explain why the former resources minister sat on the evidence of fraud in the coal industry and didn't act on it. It would certainly be a very interesting question for some investigative body to put to the former resources minister. So they're the building blocks.
An anticorruption body—great! I commend the government. Much improved whistleblower protections? I understand the government will move on that—great! Another building block. Media freedom laws so that the whole community can learn of what's going on. And political donation reform.
To that end of improving the whistleblower component of our integrity measures, I move:
That the following words be added after CPI:
"; and:
(1) notes that the bill essentially replicates protections from the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 which, given the known deficiencies of the Act, is grossly inadequate; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) review whistleblower protections in the bill to ensure that protections for whistleblowers are strong, comprehensive and fit for purpose;
(b) urgently reform the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and the Corporations Act 2001; and
(c) establish an empowered and well-resourced Whistleblower Protection Commissioner to facilitate the effective implementation and enforcement of whistleblower protections".
I'm absolutely delighted that the member for Bass will be seconding that amendment in due course.
In closing, I'm very proud to stand here today and I'm happy to say, through you, Speaker, to the Attorney-General: good on the government for finally getting cracking on a federal integrity agency. It still has those deficiencies in 'exceptional circumstances'. I still hold out hope that the government might drop just two words from the bill. And while I acknowledge the shortfalls in the whistleblower provisions in the NACC Bill, I do take this opportunity, through you, to say to the Attorney-General: as soon as we clean up our whistleblower laws we need to amend the NACC Act at the same time to ensure that those improvements are transferred across all federal legislation. There's much talk about the PID Act but there's very little talk about the Corporations Act. And while the amendments to the Corporations Act are well-intentioned, it does seem they are deficient. They can be improved as well.
I call on members to support my amendment. It's something I think we would all agree with in principle, and it doesn't in any way prevent the bill from progressing. So I do call on members to support my amendment, and I look forward to supporting the amended, or at least the unamended, NACC Bill in due course.
The SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?
Mrs Archer: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that the bills be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Kooyong moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Clark has now moved an amendment to that amendment adding words. The question now is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Clark to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be disagreed to.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (11:38): Honesty, accountability, integrity, trust: these are at the heart of what we are doing here right now. The establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will change federal politics for the better. It will improve our democracy for the better. At a time where we have a global contest between democratic systems and authoritarianism, we need to do all within our power to ensure that our great democracy is trusted; that our politicians, our public servants are accountable; and that there is faith in the processes that overwhelmingly are conducted in good faith with people of integrity, with people who are honest.
But in order to ensure there is support we need to also ensure and recognise that there have been failings in the past and that the system of holding people to account has gaps in it. That's what this legislation does. A National Anti-Corruption Commission will investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the entire Commonwealth public sector. This was one of our key election promises, and it resonated deeply with the Australian public. They want to know that their hard-earned tax dollars are spent transparently and in the interests of the nation. All of this can be further supported with a National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's one that we will deliver.
One of the elements that has undermined faith in our democratic system is politicians making promises that are clear and unequivocal and that they then fail to act on. The former government promised in 2018 that they would have a national anticorruption body. Not only did they not deliver it through the parliament; they did not even introduce legislation. That in itself raises questions about why that was the case. I suspect I know why. There were elements within the former government that avoided having a process that held high public office holders to account. We know now what we didn't know before the election: even down to who held what portfolio was not done in a transparent way by the former government. The Treasurer of Australia didn't know that he shared the portfolio and wasn't responsible for it. It's that sort of hidden process that undermines faith in our system.
We need to have a National Anti-Corruption Commission that builds on the strengths and safeguards of state anticorruption commissions that are already successfully operating in Australia, one that has no tolerance for corruption no matter who is responsible, no matter which party they may be a member of, or for that matter if they are not a member of any party, no matter where they come from.
The Commonwealth is the last jurisdiction to establish an anticorruption commission. This has allowed us to select the best design features from the state and territory commissions. Where our predecessors held out a promise but never mustered the energy to take the next step, the government I am proud to lead has come through and come through in a timely manner. Ahead of the May election, Labor went to the Australian people and told them that one of our biggest priorities would be to have an independent and effective National Anti-Corruption Commission. Australians voted for that change. We are delivering that change. We are getting on with the job. That is why this is important legislation, to take one important step towards strengthening our democracy by stamping out corruption that distorts and degrades the fabric of our community; by destroying the ecosystem in which cynical political self-interest or financial interest can flourish; by creating the conditions in which trust in government does not merely survive but thrives. We can do that by ensuring there are consequences for inappropriate behaviour which amounts to serious or systemic corruption.
The whole parliament can own the National Anti-Corruption Commission, because it has to belong to the whole country, and I pay tribute to the Attorney-General for the leadership that he has shown in this matter. I assure the parliament he has been relentless in driving this change forward in a timely manner, but I pay tribute to others who have been a part of this process as well. In particular I want to single out the member for Indi, who was a consistently strong voice on this throughout the last term of the previous government, a time when we needed all the strong voices we could get, and I pay tribute to all those who participated in the joint cross-party parliamentary committee, which came out with unanimous recommendations. That's a good thing. I have spoken about changing the way that politics is conducted in this country. This is an example of walking the walk, not just talking the talk. This government has a majority in the House of Representatives. But we sat down and collaborated across the parliament with anyone who wanted to engage with us on these issues, and that is very important as well.
Together we are working to create the best possible Anti-Corruption Commission that we can, a powerful anticorruption body with teeth and, most importantly, a fearless and completely independent body. I've been asked a range of times, 'Would your National Anti-Corruption Commission investigate A, B or C?' The question misses the point. An independent body decides what they'll investigate. That's the whole point. That is what we have ensured here can occur. An anticorruption body is needed that no government either can direct or can weaponise. The commission will be able to conduct investigations on its own initiative or in response to referrals or allegations from any source.
Another key part of the commission's independence has to be ensuring that the decision as to whether a hearing is held in public is a decision that rests entirely in the hands of the commissioner. That's the point, and that is the way in which best practice should operate, contrary to some of the comments that I've heard about the New South Wales ICAC, the Independent Commission Against Corruption. According to the ICAC's own report, just 3.5 per cent of its hearings were public in the 2020-21 financial year—3.5 per cent. Yet if you looked at some of the commentary made, you would think that every hearing of the ICAC is held in public. It is not, and it wasn't established for that purpose. The figure for the previous year, 2019-20, is a similar number.
Of course, there are important roles for public hearings in the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and that's why it has been one of our key design principles for almost four years. There are a number of factors outlined in the bill the commission may consider before deciding on this: the seriousness or systemic nature of the corrupt conduct; any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would likely be caused if the hearing were held in public; and the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public and making the public aware of corrupt conduct. They're pretty serious considerations that the commissioner will make, because there are also very concrete reasons for holding hearings in private, including to avoid prejudicing an ongoing investigation or related criminal proceedings, to protect the privacy of witnesses or to ensure national security information is protected from disclosure. This threshold that we've established here strikes the right balance to ensure that the benefits of holding public hearings are balanced against potential negative impacts.
The joint select committee that was established to inquire into the bill did an outstanding job. Made up of government, opposition and crossbench members from this place and the Senate, it delivered a unanimous report. The bill was developed in consultation with a range of stakeholders, including caucus colleagues and people from across the parliament but also eminent persons in academia and the judiciary, to ensure that the commission is robust and effective. This is parliament operating at its best, in my view.
In the recent budget, the government provided $262 million over four years for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. We will establish the NACC because public money should always be invested in the public interest. We will establish it because the health of our democracy depends on the integrity of our institutions and the transparency and the fairness of our laws, and because the trust that is generated by that accountability and transparency helps to build national cohesion, bringing the country together, overcoming divides, finding common ground. They're the key elements for building a stronger and more prosperous Australia. They're the principles that drive the government that I'm proud to lead.
This isn't about politics. We are hoping that this legislation is voted for by all 151 members of the House of Representatives and all 76 senators. That would send a very good message to the Australian people about this. I pay tribute to the people who have been prepared to vote for this for a long period of time. But I welcome people changing their position as a result of the mandate that we received in May.
Australian democracy is an extraordinary achievement. I have had the great privilege of meeting leaders at the G20, at APEC and at the East Asia Summit over the past short period. The truth is that many of those leaders that we engage with aren't the leaders of representative democracies. We engage on the basis of respect and putting our national interest. But our democracy can be fragile and can be undermined. That's why we need to make sure that our democratic systems, our public services, are as strong as they possibly can be. That is why this National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation is so important. It will have direct results over a long period of time in making people think again about some of the rorting of public funds that we have seen in recent times. It will have an impact on whether there is an abuse of power by people in the bureaucracy or by elected officials over a period of time. It will make a difference as well, I think, in the commitment that we have made. We are trying to make a difference by delivering on our promises. That's a part of our democratic system that we should not take for granted.
I conclude by congratulating the Attorney on the outstanding job that he is doing, and I call upon all members of this House to vote for this legislation.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (11:53): To build on what the Prime Minister just said: Australia is one of the world's oldest continuing democracies. It's a great achievement and it's a great inheritance. And so today I rise to support the establishment of a National Anti-Corruption Commission. But, in doing so, I also rise to lament the need to have one. Many in this place have spoken about the loss of trust, the breach of confidence and the moral corruption of leaders and the compromised decisions they make. They make the case for why we need a regulator, an enforcer, a higher body to which parliamentarians and those who deal with them owe their fears. They desire greater transparency. The argument is that, without fear of exposure and penalty, and without the fear of punishment and the compliance that comes before it, we have no hope of integrity or virtue in our Public Service.
It is often said that compliance is what you do when you are being watched but culture drives what you do when no-one is watching. While I support the establishment of a commission, for the transparency it will bring, my observation is that its extraordinary powers will tend to promote compliance on pain of exposure and enforcement, rather than fostering a revival of integrity and virtue in our public institutions. It will still be possible to pursue corrupt ends or undertake corrupt means, even as the overwatch of the commission is activated. Much of the time, misdeeds will be examined long after they have occurred, long since the effect and impact of wrongdoing has done its work and long after the benefits of exploitation have been wrought.
What I lament is the state of politics and the state of public service in Australia today, that we might need an anticorruption commission. What I lament is the necessity we feel to legislate for a commission with extraordinary powers, with unelected officials overseeing our elected officials, our Public Service and the Australian Defence Force. I lament that the key message at the heart of this debate is that those in public service can no longer be trusted.
Many in this place have been rightly focused on the design and details of the commission. That is important work, and I acknowledge the focus and diligence of all those involved. However, what does it say about Australia, about our nation and our people today, that we cannot be trusted to do what is right, let alone to not do what is wrong? What does it say about this generation of leaders, that what we need amounts to an integrity police escort wherever we go? What does it say about the times, that we elect people to represent us in this place and those people cannot be trusted?
It's fair to say we have seen breaches of public trust across society: the Australian cricket team, with the ball-tampering scandal in 2018; the alleged misdeeds of Australian Special Forces identified in the Brereton report; the countless royal commissions into aged care and veteran suicide, among others, including the financial sector; and the recent collapse of FTX cryptocurrency. Today, reports indicate that 30,000 Australians will have lost money through that collapse. The public has the right to feel let down by public institutions and those who lead them.
The commission might help put a floor under acceptable conduct and draw a line where it needs to be drawn, to show us where we should not go, but what role does it serve in promoting self-control, self-command, self-government and genuine public service? What does the commission do to encourage and inspire us not only to answer the higher calling of serving the nation but to fulfil its promise? The commission may well reinforce compliance, but what does it do to renew a culture of genuine service and private integrity that serves the best interests of the public? It is the state of politics and the state of public service today, and the failures of trust and confidence, that have triggered this debate and which I lament. How does this commission promote the traditional values of courage, prudence, justice and temperance, those classical values that have come down through history to the present?
In my first speech, back in 2015, I quoted Michael Novak in his Templeton Prize address back in 1994, given in Westminster Abbey. He said this of freedom, and it's a speech I go back to regularly:
Freedom cannot grow—it cannot even survive—in every atmosphere or clime. In the wearying journey of human history, free societies have been astonishingly rare. The ecology of liberty is more fragile than the biosphere of Earth. Freedom needs clean and healthful habits, sound families, common decencies, and the unafraid respect of one human for another. Freedom needs entire rainforests of little acts of virtue, tangled loyalties, fierce loves, undying commitments. Freedom needs particular institutions and these, in turn, need peoples of particular habits of the heart.
Consider this. There are two types of liberty: one precritical, emotive, whimsical, proper to children; the other critical, sober, deliberate, responsible, proper to adults. Alexis de Tocqueville called attention to this alternative early in Democracy in America, and at Cambridge Lord Acton put it this way: Liberty is not the freedom to do what you wish; it is the freedom to do what you ought. Human beings are the only creatures on earth that do not blindly obey the laws of their nature, by instinct, but are free to choose to obey them with a loving will. Only humans enjoy the liberty to do-or not to do-what we ought to do.
Novak says:
It is this second kind of liberty—critical, adult liberty—that lies at the living core of the free society. It is the liberty of self-command, a mastery over one's own passions, bigotry, ignorance, and self-deceit. It is the liberty of self-government in one's own personal life. … If they cannot practice self-government over their private passions, how will they practice it over the institutions of the Republic?
That was a question put by James Madison.
The institution I would rather speak for now is the institution of critical adult liberty, the self-commanded ordered liberty that Novak speaks of. More than an external commission—an integrity police escort—what would we prefer is a mastery of one's own passions—bigotry, ignorance self deceit. We need among us more self-governance of our own personal and public lives. If we cannot practise self-government over our private passions then how can we practise it over the institutions of the Commonwealth? As Novak observes, for us in our nation and in our time, there cannot be a free, open and diverse society among citizens who habitually lie, who malinger, who cheat and who do not meet their responsibilities, who cannot be counted on, who shirk difficulties and who flout the law, among other things.
I agree with Novak: freedom requires the exercise of conscience, the practise of virtues long practised in Australia's best traditions. We want self-governing individuals to restrain immoral government. That is why we are in this House, that is why we choose to be elected representatives and it is a massive responsibility. It is given to us every three years, it is not to be taken for granted, and high standards are expected of those who serve in the government; that is why we have a ministerial code of conduct. Again, the best way to uphold these traditions is self-governance, self-command and self-control. That is why I support this commission. I want to make that very clear. I support this commission and the work that has gone into it through the joint committee but I also lament the need for the commission, the state of politics and the Public Service that requires it today.
As for the legislation and the framework before this House, I continue to question why members of the Australian Defence Force and other Public Service agencies are subject to the commission whereas trade union officials, who wield large political power, particularly with this government, are exempt. So I call on this parliament to support amendments to close this obvious and ominous loophole in the framework.
Surely this government's commitment to integrity and anticorruption should adopt a lead-by-example approach, and the unions should be at the forefront of answering the call. The unions and their leaders should have no problem joining the government at the vanguard of this reform, as they play an outsized role in driving and influencing this government. There is no integrity if it is only good for some but not good for all.
I return to my call for self-governance and ordered liberty. I support the institution of this commission. While I have always supported and aspired to the highest levels of integrity and public service in this place, I believe the commission should be fair, consistent and apply to the right constituencies, including trade union leadership. However, I believe the best hope we have for curing ourselves of corruption in the heart of government and in the heart of the nation is to defeat its impulses in the hearts of each one of us.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn from the Gulag Archipelago said:
The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained"
It is a great quote. Again, I wanted to read it today to remind us of what we are called to in this place: high standards of public service, integrity and virtue. It is this private integrity and ordered self-governance that offer the best alternative to pursuing compliance over culture and resigning ourselves to a framework that at best can expose and enforce against wrongdoing but not prevent failures in integrity and the degradation of the Public Service. I thank the House.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:04): Ahead of the election in May this year the Australian Labor Party pledged to return integrity, honesty and accountability to the national government, and we keep our promises. The National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 delivers on our commitment. We do so via legislating a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. This Albanese government takes its commitment seriously. We are serious about restoring trust and integrity to Australian government. This nation desperately needs it.
Way back in 2018 the Morrison government promised to establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. They made a promise. But like everything else about that government, it was another in a long line of empty announcements that lead to nothing and led to nowhere. This legislation before the chamber delivers the single biggest integrity reform this parliament has seen in decades. It honours our commitment to Australians in both form and substance. The design principles we announced before the election are the design principles of the bill before the House. The design principles were developed with some of Australia's leading integrity advocates and endorsed by the Australian people at the election in May.
Crucially, the commission will operate independently of government and have broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. It will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory officeholders, employees of all government entities and contractors. It will have discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals from anyone, including members of the public and whistleblowers, with referrals able to be anonymous. It will be able to investigate both criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct and conduct occurring before or after its establishment. It will have the power to hold public hearings. It will also have the investigative powers to enter Commonwealth premises and request information from Commonwealth entities without a warrant, notices to produce, search warrants, surveillance and telecommunications interceptions powers. This will enable the commission to do its job effectively and root out corruption at the federal level.
Of course, prevention and education are important to us to stopping corruption before it happens. I was pleased to see the commission will also have a mandate to prevent corruption and educate Australians about such corruption. A parliamentary joint committee will oversee the commission and will be empowered to require the commission to provide information about its performance.
The remit of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, or the NACC, is to restore trust and transparency in our democratic institutions and aims to eliminate corruption in the federal public sphere. As I said earlier, the commission will be able to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct affecting any part of the federal public sector. The definition of corrupt conduct is central to the commission's jurisdiction, consistent with key elements of existing definitions at the state and territory level and in the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. It encompasses conduct by a public official that involves an abuse of office, breach of public trust, misuse of information or corruption of any other kind. It also includes conduct by any person that could adversely affect the honest or impartial exercise of a Commonwealth public official's functions.
Other conduct that could adversely affect public administration, such as external fraud, as is only appropriate, will continue to be dealt with by existing integrity agencies. This will ensure that the commission is focused on its core purpose, which is tackling and stamping out serious and systemic corruption.
There are well-established and effective arrangements for dealing with fraud and other crimes that affect Commonwealth interests. For example, in the last three years the AFP's dedicated fraud commander has undertaken over 250 investigations into serious or complex frauds. And the Commonwealth director of prosecutions has prosecuted over 1,400 fraud matters referred by the AFP and 30 other agencies in the same period, irrespective of who is the government.
The commission will be the lead Commonwealth agency for the investigation of serious or systemic corruption and will work in partnership with other agencies that form a part of the Commonwealth's broader integrity framework, including the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Public Service Commission. The commission will have the power to refer corruption issues to other Commonwealth, state and territory agencies for their consideration—for example, where an issue involves broader criminality or official misconduct which falls within the jurisdiction of another independent investigative agency.
The independence of the commission will be secured in a number of ways. The commission will be able to conduct investigations on its own initiative or in response to referrals or allegations from any source. Agency heads will be compelled to report any corruption issue in their agency to the commission if they suspect it could be serious or systemic. The appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioners will be subject to approval by the parliamentary joint committee. The appointees will have limited terms and security of tenure during that term comparable to a federal judge. The commission will be overseen by a parliamentary joint and an inspector. These are good, sensible checks and balances, the hallmarks of good, strong liberal democracies.
The parliamentary joint committee will be multipartisan. As you well know, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, committees in this parliament do incredible work. They work in a bipartisan or tripartisan or multipartisan way to make sure that the business of democracy is protected irrespective of what goes on in the executive part of the building. The parliamentary joint committee will be multipartisan. It will have 12 members: three government, two opposition and one crossbencher from each of the chambers. I could make comment on the need for senators, but I'll leave that alone in the spirit of getting everyone to support this legislation. The committee will be responsible for approving the appointments of the commissioner, the deputy commissioners and the inspector. The committee will be able to review and report to both houses of Parliament on the sufficiency of the commission's budget, because we have seen governments starve integrity bodies in the past. The committee will also be able to review the commission's performance and its annual reports. The inspector will deal with any corruption issues arising in the commission and complaints about the commission.
The commission will have a full suite of powers similar to those of a royal commission, so in essence there will be a permanent standing royal commission into corruption at the Commonwealth level. That is a sentence I love to read. It will be able to use its powers to undertake an investigation into a corruption issue if it is of the opinion it could involve serious or systemic corrupt conduct. Significantly, the commission will be able to undertake preliminary inquiries, using powers to compel the production of information, which will enable the commission to determine whether an allegation could be serious or systemic.
The commission will be able to hold public hearings if it is satisfied it is in the public interest to do so, with the default position that hearings will be held in private, as is the case around the world and in other states and territories in Australia. The legislation will provide guidance to the commission on factors that may be relevant to determining the public interest in holding a public hearing—factors such as the unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing if the hearing were to be held in public. These factors also include the benefit of making the public aware of corruption.
At the end of an investigation the commission will be required to produce a report containing findings and recommendations. Criminal guilt will remain as a matter for a court to determine, which is an integral part of our justice system. In the case when hearings are held publicly a report will be tabled in parliament, while the other reports will be published by the commissioner when they believe it is in the public interest.
Prevention and education will be a core component of the commission, as the most efficient and best way to deal with corruption is to stop it happening in the first place. This legislation will give the commission a function to provide education and information about corrupt conduct and information on how such conduct can be prevented. It will provide guidance and information to support the public sector to identify and address vulnerabilities to corruption and to understand the concept of corrupt conduct. This work will be informed by the insights the commission draws from its investigations and the intelligence it collects about corruption. The commission will also engage in broader public education about its role and about corruption risks and avenues to report corrupt conduct. There's lots of sunlight out there.
It's also important that there are safeguards written into the legislation to prevent undue reputational damage and to provide protections for whistleblowers and journalists. I know the press gallery is empty at the moment, but I cannot stress enough how important a strong media is in making sure that democracy functions adequately. I think we might be the only parliament house in the world that has the media inside the parliament house. I always see that as a great symbol of how important the fourth estate is.
The commissioner will have the express ability to make public statements at any time to avoid damage to a person's reputation. The commissioner will also be able to clarify the capacity in which a witness is appearing at a public hearing. Reports on investigations will include statements that a person has not engaged in corrupt conduct or is not the subject of any findings, where that is appropriate, to avoid damage to the person's reputation. So, rather than an investigation being used to throw mud at somebody, there will be this mechanism. The commission must afford procedural fairness to individuals or agencies who are the subject of any adverse findings it proposes to include in a report, by providing them a reasonable opportunity to respond.
The legislation provides strong protections for whistleblowers against adverse consequences including criminal offences and immunities. Public officials making disclosures to the commission will also be protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. I was also happy to see that the Attorney-General will be introducing separate reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to improve whistleblower protections, with the aim of having these reforms in place when the commission commences operation. I know the member for Clark made reference to this, but I'm not sure that he was across that in making those comments. But I know he's got a 20-year history of protecting whistleblowers and I commend him for so doing.
Protections in the legislation also include journalists, with an exemption from answering questions or providing information that would enable the identity of a source to be ascertained—with I hope, some of my concerns about the definition of what a journalist is being properly considered. Thanks to MIA for the great work that they do in protecting the integrity and professionalism of journalists.
In keeping with providing protections, political parties and their activities—which are an important part of democracy, after all—will also be recognised, and existing rules for political and parliamentary activities will continue to exist with this legislation. The legislation makes it clear that the use of public resources to conduct parliamentary business in accordance with the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 or the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is not within the commission's jurisdiction. It also confirms that political activities that do not involve or affect the exercise of powers or functions by public officials or the use of public resources cannot constitute corrupt conduct. The commission will be able to investigate a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority or the Australian Electoral Commission only if the IPEA or the AEC refer the matter to the commission. Before referring the matter, these authorities would need to form the view that the information raises a corruption issue that could be serious or systemic. The legislation also expressly preserves parliamentary privilege by providing that it does not affect the powers, privileges or immunities of each house of the parliament.
Of course, an effective National Anti-Corruption Commission requires proper resourcing, and the Albanese government has committed substantial funding of $262 million over four years for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. This funding will ensure that the commission has the staff, the capabilities and the capacity to triage referrals and allegations it receives, conduct timely investigations and undertake corruption prevention and education activities. Importantly for the future of the commission, the legislation provides for the parliamentary joint committee to regularly review and report on the sufficiency of the commission's budget.
To wrap up, this bill is the Albanese government fulfilling its election commitment to establish a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's a significant step in restoring trust and integrity back into government, something that the Australian people wanted and voted for at the last election—and we see that corner of the parliament representing that fact as much as this side of the chamber. I remember speaking in the parliament back in June 2020 lamenting the fact that at that point the Morrison government still hadn't delivered on its promise to put forward draft legislation by 2019, which, as we know, they never did. What they did bring in was a weak, ineffective and opaque piece of legislation, after they'd spent the best of a decade trashing the trust and integrity of parliament. Thankfully the Australian people saw through them and voted for and will receive, thanks to the Albanese government, a National Anti-Corruption Commission that will restore trust and integrity back into politics.
I note—and I can't really speak to this, because I'm on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has looked at some government amendments—that there would be a lot of things I'd like to say about offering protection for people with disabilities and the like. But I'll leave that for when we've tabled our human rights committee report. It's a milestone occasion in Australian politics, and I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.
Ms D ANIEL (Goldstein) (12:20): This is the legislation that will define this parliament and this government. Get it right, and the electorate will applaud; get it wrong, and the major parties and indeed this parliament will pay the price. In recent years Australia has plummeted in world rankings for integrity. In 2012 Australia received a score of 85 out of 100 in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. By 2021 that had collapsed to 73. This has economic costs. Credible research estimates the decline in Australia's rating cut economic growth by six-tenths of one per cent, with 60,000 fewer jobs and the annual loss of government revenue at no less than $10 billion. The coalition paid the price at the last election for breaking a solemn promise at the 2019 election to establish a national anticorruption commission. Its record of pork-barrelling, from sports rorts to commuter car parks, along with a decade of denial and delay on climate change, cost it government.
This is landmark legislation that will usher in once-in-a-generation reform. I note that we wouldn't be debating this legislation without the efforts of Independents who came before me to this place. The former member for Indi Cathy McGowan, the member for Clark, the member for Warringah and especially the current member for Indi put issue of integrity on the agenda and ensured it was one of the main priorities during the last election campaign. In standing up this commission the parliament will reflect the will of the people, a population that has lost trust in leadership. The public wants transparent oversight of decision-making, especially when it involves the use of public money. What could be more galling, after all, than dodgy use of public funds at a time when the average Australian family is struggling to fill up the car, pay the rent or mortgage and cover the power bill?
There is a view among our constituents that there is one rule for us and one rule for them. This disconnect between the people and those of us who represent them is dangerous. We have seen what happens elsewhere when voters lose trust in their institutions and their representatives. Democracy itself is put at risk, falling prey to cheap and angry populism which rips at the fabric of society. Repairing this trust should be in my view our paramount priority. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is at the core of an integrity system that will begin that process. It is the beginning, not the end, of a process to develop that integrity system that will ensure voters regain trust in government and our institutions.
In doing that I say to this government that this legislation, the form of it, the force of it and the execution of it will be your legacy. Do not blink. Do not pass a weaker version of this legislation than you need to, for the sake of political expediency. If you do, you will undermine the rebuilding of that trust before you even begin. The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, as integrity is defined, is how you, the government, and this parliament should define yourselves in this legislation. After all, it was the absence of action by the previous government to establish such a commission with independence and teeth that helped put six new Independents on this crossbench in this House.
The Attorney-General, I'm aware, does not seek to put in place an integrity commission but does state that this is central to a broader integrity framework. To my mind that framework will be shaky from the beginning if the commission's work is compromised by guidelines that make public hearings the exception. Integrity, and with that the need for a national anticorruption commission, was by far the most profound priority of the people of Goldstein who elected me to this place. Taking away that transparency will leave them short-changed and disappointed.
I strongly believe that the bar of exceptional circumstances should be removed from this bill as a trigger for public hearings. Let's call a spade a spade. We all know why this test was added to the legislation at the eleventh hour. It's because, despite this expanded crossbench, the major parties are in the habit of self-protection. I do respect the Attorney-General's rigorous work on this bill. I understand the government's preference for consensus. But, in seeking that consensus, the integrity of the building itself should not be undermined. After careful consideration and expert advice, I believe that the test of public interest and the various requirements that the commission must consider are enough for us not to need the test of exceptional circumstances, particularly with the additional protections in the bill regarding reputational damage and safety, and the capacity of the commission to make clear publicly when a witnesses either cleared or not the subject of the probe. Reputations are important, and so is the mental health of those being investigated.
While portions of the press and politics would have you believe that integrity commissions flippantly launch cases to bring people down, those are simply not the facts. The New South Wales ICAC, for example, does not assume guilt before innocence. It investigates and makes recommendations, much like a royal commission. It does not convict people. What integrity commissions do in this fast-moving, information overloaded world of ours is stop the clock. They don't quickly lose interest. Their job is forensic investigation to get the facts. Public hearings must not require such a high bar that they thwart the process, as in Victoria, which with an exceptional circumstances provision has held only a handful of public hearings in the last decade, compared to its New South Wales counterpart without that provision.
The Victorian IBAC commissioner, Robert Redlich, has had real-life experience of what it has meant for IBAC to be constrained by that barrier. In a powerful submission and testimony to the joint select committee inquiry, he said that public examination of witnesses is crucial to giving the public confidence in a system of integrity, as well as making investigations more transparent and raising public awareness, and that the imposition of a requirement of exceptional circumstances had placed 'an artificial limit' on IBAC and was unnecessary for the NACC. He stated without reservation:
The NACC must be permitted to hold public examinations without a requirement for exceptional circumstances, so long as there is specific provision that the Commissioner cannot call a witness unless satisfied that there is no unreasonable damage to reputation and that there will be no damage to the witness's welfare.
That being the case in the NACC legislation, Commissioner Redlich concludes:
It is therefore IBAC's position that a requirement that exceptional circumstances must exist for a public hearing to be held is unnecessary given the safeguards that already exist within cl.73(3) of the Bill.
That clause states that the commissioner must, not may, consider a range of factors when deciding whether to hold a public hearing, including the extent of the corrupt conduct, whether it relates to the commission of an offence, any unfair prejudice, any particular vulnerability, and the benefits of public awareness. Public confidence is everything when it comes to the establishment of this commission. That's part of the point that Commissioner Redlich was striving to make.
Respected constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey put it even more powerfully in her submission to the inquiry. If the exceptional circumstances requirement remains, she argues, 'the NACC will be a body with great powers that can investigate matters in secret, hold secret hearings and issue secret reports containing secret findings. This will undermine public trust in the NACC and is inconsistent with the principle of transparency.' I agree.
Arguably, some say, there's a difference between a pork-barrelling in the form of car parks and sports rorts and outright corruption. However, as Stephen Charles from the Centre for Public Integrity says, pork-barrelling is outside the law. What it comes down to is using public money to benefit oneself or one's party politically. This fails the integrity test and should also come under the gamut of the commission. As I have previously written, even many journalists have come desensitised to this. It's so ubiquitous that it attracts little more than a shrug and an eye roll in many quarters. As the former commissioner of the New South Wales ICAC, the Hon. Peter Hall KC, told the joint select committee on this bill:
There is a need to address this question of electioneering promises, where there is currently, it seems—not always but in many cases—a lack of any proper business case or analytical attempt to truly determine what is in the public interest.
Third-party behaviour is another area where corrupt conduct would go uncaptured by the current iteration of this bill. On this, I concur with the language used in section 8(2A) in the New South Wales ICAC Act and most other similar Australian acts:
Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person … that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration—
It involves a list of matters including fraud and collusive tendering. As I have already made clear, public confidence and trust is everything.
Within that context, I've also drawn on my three decades as a journalist and foreign correspondent to propose several amendments to the media and informant provisions in this bill. There is a fine balance to be found between the ability of the commission to find information and to protect its process and the critically important public right to know, which intersects with the media and the protection of journalists' sources. On that basis, I've advocated for a range of changes that protect whistleblowers who provide information to journalists; safeguard journalists and whistleblowers from having to provide information about each other; protect all members of the editorial and administrative chain; protect media organisations from being searched without a warrant; require any warrants granted to be allocated by a judge; and allow media organisations to apply for nondisclosure notifications to be lifted.
I would like to thank the Attorney-General and his office for their consideration and for actively addressing my concerns in the government's amendments to provide stronger protections for reporters and their organisations as they uncover corrupt political activity and to require search warrants to be issued by a judge rather than a member of the AAT. Never again do we want to see reporters like Annika Smethurst, Dan Oakes and Sam Clark at risk of criminal prosecution simply for doing their jobs.
On that basis, I continue to have concern about the prospect of journalists who receive leaked documents being prosecuted, and I'm in continuing discussions with the government about this. This commission must not become a bastion of secrecy that not only restricts public hearings but forbids disclosures in a rigid way, leaving journalists with jail terms hanging over their heads even for reporting the truth. The commission should foster transparency and allow the sunlight in, not operate shrouded in darkness, thereby further fracturing public trust—the exact opposite of what it's intended to do.
I commend the government, and particularly the Attorney-General and his staff, for their work on this once-in-a-generation bill. I will support it, but I say again: this is your legacy. Don't blink.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:33): I'll start as the Prime Minister did a little while ago in this place: honesty, accountability, integrity, trust. I've spoken before in this place about the need for us to rebuild the ethical infrastructure of our nation. Great disservice and great damage was being done to the ethical infrastructure of this nation under those opposite over many years, and our government is rectifying that partially with the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022.
Australia enjoys a strong international reputation as a country with robust institutions, rule of law and integrity, but we've been sliding down the rankings. We see this in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, which measures trust in government by its citizens. That data showed that, between 2012 and 2018, Australia slid to 13th place in the index. A 2018 Australia Institute report calculated that perceptions of growing corruption in Australia shaved four per cent off our GDP due to the hit to business confidence. That had a real cost to us of $72 billion. Then there is the enormous five per cent of GDP that corruption is thought to cost the global economy in plundered wealth. Between 2018 and 2021, Australia dropped five more slots to reach 18th place in the Corruption Perceptions Index. That was obviously a concern to us and to all Australians of good faith.
As a result, it played a role in us now being on this side of the chamber. It has been our commitment, and we are now discharging our responsibility, to bring this legislation into being. As Pope Francis has said, 'The corruption of the powerful ends up being paid for by the poor.' That $72 billion that is embezzled from, or not created in, Australia, costs us all. It is investment for roads, for social housing needed by the many, that is squandered by the greed of the few.
But corruption of course is about more than dollar figures in the GDP; corruption is often compared to a social disease that aggressively spreads, if it is not treated as early as possible. As US President Joe Biden once said:
Corruption is a cancer, a cancer that eats away at a citizen's faith in democracy, diminishes the instinct for innovation and creativity …
The rotting effect of corruption is to sink into the joints of our democracy and corrode from within, because, like it or not, even the unsubstantiated whiff of corruption is as good as proof of corruption in the minds of many citizens, when the accusation trends on Twitter.
When a politician, regardless of party affiliation, subverts Commonwealth guidelines for allocating public money to advance a political or personal interest, that is corruption. When an official bend the rules of a tender process to help a mate bidding for a government contract, that is corruption. When a minister steps down from office and monetises as their wealth of inside information and contacts in a lucrative lobbying gig in the portfolio they formerly held, that is corruption—or at least, it could be.
Establishing a national anticorruption commission with the power to investigate such cases under the supervision of this parliament is the most effective way to tackle corruption at a federal level. We members and senators cannot afford to maintain the status quo—the languishing of ethical standards that we have seen in the last decade. The status quo is one where only 40 per cent of the population is satisfied in our democracy, down from 85 per cent in 2007. That is an appalling loss of faith in our democracy. These are the results of a research project by the new Museum of Australian Democracy, which predicted that, on current trends, fewer than 10 per cent of Australians would see this parliament as being legitimate by 2025. That was the trajectory that we were on under the former federal government.
Just think about what that would mean for a minute, if that were to come to pass. If, as the Museum of Australian Democracy project predicted, 90 per cent of voters one day didn't believe that our democracy was the very best form of government, that wouldn't be good at all. But what the world looks like when democrats become the minority is something history has rightly taught us to fear. The 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer found that the bubble of trust in government, business, media and NGOs recorded in 2021 has now burst. Politics is seen as a dividing force in our society. This trust deficit is literally tearing our societies apart. Sixty-one per cent of Australians responding to this study reported feeling unable to have civil debates about issues they disagree on. While trust in our political institutions is only one part this larger national pattern, it is a very important part of it. A federal anticorruption body alone may not be able to reverse the tide of perceptions that took decades to set in, but it is a formidable step towards restoring trust in our politics, in our democracy and in our fellow Australians.
Trust is the living spirit of this institution. Without it this place is simply cement and steel—a statue. It is a beautiful building but it's dead without the trust of those who we are called to serve and are elected to serve. Our democracy has no future without the belief of most of our citizens that despite its limitations this is still the highest form of government. That's why the Albanese Labor government takes our promise that we made to the Australian people seriously, and that is to tackle corruption and to restore trust, integrity, honesty and accountability to federal politics. This legislation gives effect to the principles we took to the election and that were endorsed by the Australian people. It delivers on a commitment by the Albanese government to legislate a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. It also draws on the best elements of state and territory anticorruption commissions and laws. This bill provides the commission with a broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector.
The commission will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory officeholders, employees of all government entities and contractors. It will have discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals from anyone. It will be able to investigate both criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct occurring before or after its establishment.
The commission defines corrupt conduct as an abuse of office, breach of public trust or a misuse of information by officials. To stamp out this behaviour the commissioner will have a full suite of powers similar to those of a royal commission. The commissioner will be able to use these powers to undertake an investigation into a corruption issue. The overarching principle here is that all of the work of the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner will be conducted in the public interest, in the interests of those that we serve.
The commission will be independent. It will be the commissioner who will decide where the public interest lies. The commissioner will decide whether the hearing is going to be public or not. The commissioner will be able to make findings of corrupt conduct but not of criminal liability. Criminal liability can only be determined by a court.
Importantly though, and I stress again, this commission will be independent. Anyone subject to a critical finding must be given a chance to respond out of procedural fairness. I believe that this commission, with its independence enshrined, will be able to conduct investigations on its own initiative or in response to allegations from any source, overseen by a parliamentary joint committee and an inspector. The parliamentary joint committee will be made of 12 members—three government, two opposition, one from the crossbench from each house and a government chair with a casting vote. The inspector will deal with any corruption issues arising in the commission and complaints about the commission as well. Transparency is essential. The commissioner's investigative function will be balanced with strong safeguards to ensure that corruption investigations do not cause undue reputational damage, and that is incredibly important. This legislation provides strong protections against criminal offences and immunities for whistleblowers. The bill also ensures that there are appropriate protections for journalists and their sources.
The government has committed $262 million over four years for the establishment and operation of the commission. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is a nation-building reform, will assist us in rebuilding the ethical infrastructure of our nation and will hold us all up to the very high standards both that our citizens expect of us working in the federal realm and that our citizens deserve. May this only be the start of the national task of stamping out corruption and restoring faith in our democracy, because we do have the foundations of a great democracy. Our government is after that goal of more trust in our democracy, because that's what our citizens deserve. We will restore faith in our democracy again, and this bill goes to that most important task.
Mr VIOLI (Casey) (12:46): Through my election campaign I committed to supporting the establishment of a national anticorruption commission to play a key role in building trust in politics, and I am proud to be standing here today delivering on my promise by supporting this legislation to establish that commission. All of us in this place come from different parts of this wonderful country. We hold different views. Our values differ, and so do our personality traits. That is the value of a representative democracy. But as politicians and representatives the one trait we should all share is our integrity, and that is why I am supportive of a National Anti-Corruption Commission.
As I said in my first speech, there is no greater honour, privilege or responsibility than representing your community and your family's home in federal parliament. It is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly and a privilege that should always be met with integrity. Our democracy is fragile. Trust in our institutions is vital to its survival. However, we must also never forget that behind all these investigations are people and families and the need for natural justice. Personally I find it concerning that this bill removes the fundamental legal right to privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. This is why I'm supporting our amendments to ensure that it is done only when absolutely necessary, because of the significant impost on fundamental rights, and these amendments are supported by the Law Council of Australia.
As an example of the power these institutions can hold over everyday lives, I wish to share a real-life example of the impact of the Victorian anticorruption commission. I note that this morning the member for Bruce shared the story of Amanda Stapledon and that her story is seared in his memory. So too is it seared in mine. Amanda Stapledon was a former mayor of the City of Casey, and earlier this year, under investigation from the Victorian anticorruption watchdog, Amanda took her own life. Amanda was a long-term city councillor, serving on council from 2008 until her death earlier this year. When she died, she was described as someone who had dedicated her life to her family and to helping others.
Amanda was one of a group of former Casey councillors investigated by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. IBAC conducted weeks of public hearings about a group of councillors' alleged corruption through late 2019 and 2020. Amanda, described by her friends as loving, caring, genuine, honest, fun-loving and family first, spent the final two years of her life looking over her shoulder, growing increasingly isolated and racked with anxiety about her fate. On Friday 14 January 2022, IBAC's draft report arrived, shackled by laws preventing her from talking to anyone about this other than a lawyer. The ex-mayor had to handle it alone. She took her life three days later.
We must never forget the impact these investigations have on the lives of public officials and their families. It's not just members of parliament and public servants that will be answerable to this commission; it will apply to the ADF; the AFP; NDIS; aged-care workers; and any contractor, subcontractor, or person exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth. I am not suggesting that these people or politicians should have special protections or a different standard. But I do believe that they deserve natural justice and the right to be innocent until proven guilty. And we need to strike the right balance. Amanda's example shows how important this balance is and how getting it wrong can have tragic and unnecessary consequences.
The commission will be able to commence inquiries on its own initiative after receiving a referral from anyone, including anonymous members of the public and whistleblowers. It will also have the power to hold public hearings. Over recent weeks the National Anti-Corruption Commission has been subject to review by the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. The provisions of the bill have been carefully considered. The coalition has approached this process with good faith and the intention of ensuring the bill gets the balance right between stamping out corruption and protecting the rights of everyday people brought before the commission. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills made extensive recommendations to improve the bill, highlighting concerns around loose definitions and the use of coercive powers without adequate safeguards in place. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted concerns about the use of gag orders and their long-term application, which can harm the mental health of people brought before the commission, as we devastatingly saw with the passing of Councillor Amanda Stapledon.
These concerns are not just things that we can sweep under the carpet. That's why the coalition are introducing amendments that will ensure the commission applies its powers fairly and reasonably with the right balance. Firstly, we are introducing an amendment that will close the loophole the government inserted for their union mates. The government talks a big game on integrity, but when it comes to unions that goes out the window. They try to deny that there is a union exception, but it is there, plain and clear. I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that the commission does not apply to union officials exercising a power under the law of the Commonwealth. The question is: how is it that John Setka from the CFMMEU wouldn't have to answer to the commission, but ADF and NDIS workers in my electorate would? If Labor is serious about integrity, there should be no loopholes, which is why we're putting forward our amendment.
We're also putting forward other amendments, backed by experts from the Law Council, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, and the SA Bar Association. We think it's important that it's not just a single commissioner alone that decides to commence a public hearing. The government's bill gives too much power to one single official. We believe it should be shared between the commissioner and the deputy commissioner.
We also think that it should be compulsory, not optional, for the commissioner to consider other factors before deciding whether a public hearing is appropriate, and this is important because no person is above reproach and we need to have those safeguards in place. It is important to remember that these are real lives that we are dealing with, with this legislation. The commissioner should have to consider whether confidential information is involved, whether there would be unfair prejudice to a person's reputation or whether a person giving evidence has any particular vulnerability, such as being under coercion by another person. This amendment was supported by the Queensland Law Society, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australia Institute.
When I think about this bill I think back to Amanda Stapledon and how we can improve the system to be more balanced. I believe one thing we need to do is make sure that these investigations have a time limit. Amanda's investigation went for two years. The unknown is traumatic and steals years from people's lives. Our amendment proposes a 12-month time limit on investigations.
We must also look to limit gag orders that prevent people from disclosing that they have appeared before the commission. In the interests of mental health, people should be able to make a disclosure to an immediate family member, as long as they are not a person of interest, as well as to a medical or mental health professional. Whether people before the commission are innocent or guilty, appearing before the commission will be a traumatic and stressful time for them, so giving them the right to share that with a loved one and a mental health professional is so important, because we all know how important is to be able to talk and share the troubles that you are having.
One of the most fundamental components of our legal system is the ability to appeal, or receive a review, when decisions are made. This commission should be no different. We know from history that no commissioner or judge is infallible. Mistakes, unfortunately, can be made, and we have to have a safeguard to give people the right to appeal that decision. All decisions of the commission should be subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, and we are introducing an amendment to allow that to happen. For this body to be successful, it needs to have the trust of the public and it must be balanced, and it must stand up to ongoing operations.
We are supportive of this bill, with these amendments, because corruption is wrong and it should, and must, be stamped out. It was a coalition government that introduced Australia's first ICAC, in 1988. We want this commission to succeed, but we must balance the need to stamp out corruption with the need to protect the lives of those people brought before the commission. Ultimately, while this commission will play a key role in building trust with the community, it rests with all of us in this House to act with integrity and to essentially answer to ourselves on the representatives that we want to be, the culture that we want in this House and how we want to be viewed by the public. A commission will play a role in holding representatives to account, but delivering integrity and trust in this House is through the actions of all of us as elected representatives.
Ms SITOU (Reid) (13:00): During this year's federal election campaign, I had the great pleasure of doorknocking all across my wonderful electorate of Reid. It's an electorate that takes in a corridor running from the inner-west of Sydney by the harbour in Drummoyne, right along the Parramatta Road through to Burwood, Lidcombe and Sydney Olympic Park. It's an electorate as diverse in its demography as it is in the languages that it speaks. We're a multilingual community with many families speaking Chinese, Lebanese, Korean, Italian, Greek or Hindi. We are a community where more than half of use were born overseas.
As you would expect from this diverse community, there is a diversity of opinion. We all want what is best for our families and our futures, but I think it's fair to say there is a diversity of views about how get there. With this diversity in mind, it was truly extraordinary to see the unanimity with which my community expressed its views on one particular subject, that of integrity. In amongst the thousands of conversations I had with residents, the issue that came up regularly was people's desire to see integrity back in parliament.
At the tail end of the last coalition government, there was a feeling across my community that federal politics, and perhaps politicians themselves, could not be trusted. The Governance Institute of Australia just released its report on the least trusted occupations, and there are no surprises there. Politicians filled up the top spots. State, federal and local politicians took out the first, second and fourth spots; real estate agents took out the third. It is a sentiment expressed in other surveys, too. In 2018, Griffith University's Australian Constitutional Values Survey found a considerable slide in trust in government between 2012 and 2018. An ANU study found only 59 per cent of Australians were satisfied with how democracy was functioning, a 27 per cent drop from a record high in 2007. Over the past decade, according to Transparency International, we have fallen down the rankings of the Corruption Perceptions Index. On a scale out of 100, Australia's score in 2012 was 85. In 2021 that had dropped to 73, a 12 point drop. We experienced the biggest drop amongst all OECD countries, alongside Hungary. These results are deeply dispiriting, because they mean the public no longer trusts government to act in their best interest. A cynicism has set in.
But I know good governments matter; they change lives. I know that because they changed mine. Successive governments of all persuasions made critical decisions that had an impact on my family. This allowed a family fleeing conflict to come to this country and thrive here. It is essential we build trust with the public again, because we are here to serve them.
Trust in politics is the glue that holds our democracy together. It is the foundation on which this place is built. Every time a voter walks into the voting booth on election day, they are putting their faith and their trust in those with the privilege of being elected. The trust in us is given freely by the electorate, but it is conditioned upon us as parliamentarians acting in the best interests of our electorates, not for personal gain. We are trusted by our constituents to act with integrity, and this is the covenant between those who govern and those who are governed. It's simple to say, but extremely hard to rebuild once trust is lost. But rebuild we must. In every state and territory there is an anticorruption commission. They oversee state, territory and local governments. The only jurisdiction without one is the federal government, and we're hoping to change that.
In my home state of New South Wales, the Independent Commission Against Corruption exposed corrupt behaviour—corrupt activities that have meant that the interests of individuals were placed over the public's and the community's interests, corruption committed by representatives at both levels of government, local and state, by both major political parties, including the party I am part of, the Labor Party. And it saddens me to say that, but I'm grateful to the Sydney Morning Herald's investigative reporter Kate McClymont for exposing this corrupt behaviour. And I'm grateful to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for its thorough investigation, because I don't want to be part of a party that has corrupt representatives. I want their behaviour exposed, investigated and prosecuted. It's time for us to hold federal parliamentarians to that level of scrutiny and accountability so that the public can trust us again. That's why I'm so proud to speak on this bill, because fundamentally this is a bill about rebuilding trust and integrity in our politics.
The key features of the National Anti-Corruption Commission are fairly well known, but it's worth briefly outlining the key points. In fact, one of the only benefits of having taken so long to establish a federal version of an anticorruption commission means we can draw on the best of those state and territory examples. The commission will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory office holders, employees of all government entities and contractors. It will be able to investigate both criminal and non-criminal conduct and will have retrospective powers. The commission will have the powers of a royal commission. It will have investigative powers that allow it to seek out information if it is of the opinion that an issue potentially involves serious or systemic corrupt conduct. The commission will operate independently, at arm's length from government. We know that independence from government is a key feature of all the different models across the country and is fundamental to building civic trust in the institution.
The commission will have the authority to conduct investigations on its own initiative or in response to referrals or allegations from any source. Recent amendments have bolstered this independence by clarifying the commissioner's authority. The commission will be overseen by a parliamentary joint committee and by an inspector. That parliamentary joint committee will be multipartisan, with three government ministers, two opposition members and one crossbench member from each chamber. Importantly, appointees to the commission will have limited terms and security of tenure comparable to that of a federal judge. Our government has gone about seeking the input of members of all persuasions across this House. We have done that deliberately, because we want members of this place to get onboard with this important reform.
Now is not the time to play politics. Now is the time to strengthen and improve our politics, because that's what the public wants to see. I want to thank the crossbench for their constructive approach to this bill. Where we have been able to find common ground and consensus we have. We have moved amendments to change the definition of 'corrupt conduct' and strengthened whistleblower protections by amending the Public Interest Disclosure Act. On the points where we have difference of views—namely, the debate over public versus private hearings—I accept that this is a delicate and difficult question. We know that public hearings are an important element in uncovering, exposing and deterring corruption. Once you accept that this legislation is about public trust in our institutions then you have to accept that there needs to be room for the public to view these proceedings.
However, a balance needs to be struck. We have to weigh those public interest rights against the rights of the individuals concerned. Reputational harm and harm to an individual's welfare are important considerations, too. Weighing up these two considerations, I think it's right that the commission will be able to hold public hearings where it is in the public interest and where exceptional circumstances justify them. The model being proposed by the government leaves it for the commission to determine when it should hold hearings in public and whether that threshold has been met. So, while I respect and to some extent share the concerns of those views expressed by the crossbench, I believe we have landed in the right place.
I want to thank the crossbench for their collaborative approach to this bill, and I'm glad that those opposite are starting to come on board to the idea of a National Anti-Corruption Commission. Integrity in our Parliament should not be the domain of one party. For us to regain trust with the public, we need the whole Parliament to get on board. This bill reflects the best of the state and territory models. Importantly, this legislation was an election commitment that we on this side of the House take seriously. I'm incredibly proud that the Albanese Labor government is bringing in this legislation as a matter of priority, and I'm proud of the consultative way we have done it. It has shown some of the best of what this place can offer with extraordinary input from the crossbench and community stakeholders across the country. I hope that it marks an inflection point in this country's view of its politicians.
I want to briefly turn to my electorate, to the people of Reid. I consider it the privilege of my life to be elected to this House. The trust that you've put in me to act with integrity is absolutely core to how I have acted thus far and will continue to act as your member. Your trust weighs on me, just as it should, and I can tell you that it weighs on this government, just as it should. We will repay your trust.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:11): One of Australia's leading auction houses has an auction at the moment in which one of the items is a poster from the 1969 federal election, which reads 'Whoever you vote for, a politician always gets in. Vote informal.' I think that's outrageous. It is wrong. There are more than 103,000 names on the Australian War Memorial just down the way of people who died so that we could have free, democratic and fair elections. For media companies, for activists, for anyone to suggest that you should vote informal is a slight on those Diggers who lost their lives, who made the supreme sacrifice for and on behalf of the democracy of the nation. I would never suggest that anybody vote informal. In fact, I would sooner see them vote Labor than waste their vote. There you go.
Mr Joyce: That's a big statement!
Mr Mc CORMACK: That's true. That is a big statement, member for New England, but it is true, because to cast an informal vote is thumbing your nose at those people who lost their lives fighting for this country. You should cast your ballot in favour of someone who is going to represent your electorate, someone who's going to come into this place and fight for the interests of your local communities, your local region. That's what it's all about. I would say that all, or perhaps almost all, of the people who come to this House of Representatives, and the Senate too for that matter, come in with the very best of intentions.
I listened closely to the member for Reid talking about how politics and politicians were at a low ebb at the moment. That is sad and true, but we shouldn't disparage our profession and one another to the point where the community has that feeling. Of course social media plays a big part in that. The sewer that Twitter can be plays a big part in it if it's left unchecked. There's a lot of scrutiny on politicians, not the same scrutiny that's applied on those people who necessarily write about politicians, who broadcast about politicians. I'm not directly having a crack at the fourth estate, the press gallery. There are times when we make mistakes and we lose our jobs. They make mistakes and they might have a Walkley Award taken from them, or there might be some repercussions, but it's not as much as the court of public opinion, that is the pub test. That is of course different to corruption.
We support an anticorruption commission because corruption is wrong, and we know that, and corruption should not be tolerated in any form. But, by the same token, we have to get the parameters of this legislation right such that we don't get innocent people—who may be named or may be shamed, indeed, by association—dragged through some anticorruption hearing, who are as honest as the day is long, who are more pure than the driven snow. That's what worries me about this legislation and about the Anti-Corruption Commission.
I am in favour of an anticorruption commission. I have nothing to hide; I very much want to see an anticorruption commission. Indeed, I was asked a question—one of those 'yes' or 'no' gotcha moments at a pre-election forum. A lawyer from Wagga Wagga asked me the question—just 'yes' or 'no'; he asked it of all the candidates—and I said, 'Yes, I am in favour of an anticorruption commission.' But let's get it right, such that innocent people don't have their names dragged through the mud by their local press, by their local community or by some person who just wants to grind their axe on that person—and that's what worries me.
I well remember my former local state member and the former Premier of New Wales going before the Independent Commission Against Corruption. And we all know about it; it was a well-publicised hearing. There were intimate details expressed to one another via a telephone call, which was being tapped. The ICAC hearing said that hearing should have been held in camera, in secret. And it should have been, but it wasn't, and that is unfortunate. Sensitive details of the relationship between the pair were—the Sydney Morning Herald used the word 'inadvertently'—made public after the Independent Commission Against Corruption uploaded suppressed evidence to its website.
We're all humans; we all have views. Whilst I appreciate the independence of such bodies as ICAC, imagine getting a board or a hearing or a so-called independent group determining such a thing, and somehow, some way, it inadvertently gets broadcast for all of the public to see, for all of the public to hear, for all of the public to read. This is what happens. Well may you smile, member opposite, but this is what happens, and it's grist for the media mill, and that is so, so unfortunate. Of course, they're named, they're damned, they're shamed, and once the mud is thrown there's no cleaning the mud off, particularly in regional communities, where everybody seems to know everybody else's business.
People who break the law should face the law—there's no question. It was this side of politics that introduced Australia's first ICAC back in 1988, and we are currently introducing laws, powers, that we feel should be applied in a fair and reasonable way, and I'm not so certain that this legislation does just that. We hear from the purists who sit over there, the Independents. Fair dinkum—some of these Independents in both state and federal parliaments in Australia, on any given issue, take an each-way bet. Honestly, if it's one way or the other, they agree with both, such that they get so many splinters in their backside they almost need hospitalisation to extricate them. That is the way. And they're always pure and perfect. I'll tell you why they're pure and perfect. It's because they will never, ever sit around a cabinet table or a ministerial meeting and have to make a decision. They'll never have to make a decision to save themselves. The media in their local communities will ask them for a view, and they'll take an each-way bet. It's no wonder they want to have legislation such as this with powers such as this brought to a place such as this; unless they're totally corrupt, they'll never be called to account because they'll never be making a decision to save themselves.
If you are making a decision, as the member for New England and I have in the infrastructure space, when the funding for those pools of money, those limited resources, those limited amounts of money—being former deputy prime ministers and former infrastructure ministers, we know full well that those grant funding programs are oversubscribed six and seven to one. Yes, you take advice from the bureaucrats. You have a full ministerial council which sits over the decision, and you make a decision. And sometimes you actually go to members, be they Labor members—who were then in opposition—or your colleagues, and ask them for a view on a particular project, because it's the local member who knows best—better than the Canberra bureaucrat who doesn't know diddly squat, quite frankly, and doesn't care and won't take responsibility and won't ever have their name on a ballot paper. Yet, somehow, some way, some people in this place think it is bureaucrats who should be making the decisions about funding programs for regional Australia, for any community, for any of our 151 electorates in Australia. I don't think that's the proper way. Yet, if you make a decision, God forbid you make a decision that is for your own electorate—and I appreciate you have to make a declaration saying, 'That's my electorate and that funding is going to my electorate.'
The independents somehow, even though they were very much recipients and beneficiaries of some of the coalition largess when we were giving out regional funding, seem to think that's corrupt. They seem to think a Canberra bureaucrat is better placed to make a decision than a member of parliament who happens to be elected to cabinet. I didn't come to this place to get elected, appointed or voted in as a cabinet minister; I was just very fortunate, very privileged and very honoured, and I know the member for New England felt the same way about his elevation. We chaired those Building Better Regions Fund meetings with a full ministerial council, taking the advice of the bureaucrats but not necessarily following it to the letter of the law because we felt we knew, and that our colleagues knew and that our opponents knew, what was best for our communities rather than a faceless bureaucrat in Canberra who will never have their name on a ballot paper. That is the truth. But is that corrupt? No, it's not. But, somehow, in some way, the independents will tell you that it is, and that really bugs me. It bugs me as well that you then get the media on your case simply because you have a situation whereby some organisation, some local government area, has got a funding grant that was somehow, in some way, because of a decision made by a Canberra bureaucrat, scored a little bit less than some other application of another area—or, indeed, in the same area—just because that council may well have had the resources, capacity and the staff to put together a better application than the more deserving recipient—and that is the absolute truth.
The unions are carved out from this legislation. I cannot see why it's good enough for National Disability Insurance Scheme contractors, aged-care workers and Australian Defence Force members to be questioned, yet union officials somehow seem to be carved out. Why is that? I know we rushed the industrial relations legislation through in time for the Christmas picnics of the unions; I get that. I understand why that was rushed through to the Senate, or virtually gagged—so it would be done in time as payback for the unions. But this is a bit more important than that.
Government members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Those opposite yelling out want to be very careful. You've got to be careful what you wish for in this place. Just ask Nick Greiner—a good man, a very, very good man, but somebody who stridently pushed through the ICAC legislation in New South Wales. There have been some good people who have fallen foul of these ICAC processes, and, in fact, they have even had to step aside—let's take the case of former premier Berejiklian—when things weren't proven. But, to get on with the continuity of government and to make sure that people felt confident in Macquarie Street and elsewhere, they had to step aside while processes took place.
Another thing is that, if you take the case I just mentioned of the former Premier and the former member for Wagga Wagga, it just drags on and on and on. I know there was a journalist from the Wagga Wagga paper who recently bemoaned the fact that he'd started there some years ago, when the inquiry first started, and he has now left, years later, and the inquiry's findings, results and outcomes are still yet to be determined. That's too long. It's not good enough.
I do worry about some of the conditions of this particular legislation. It's all well good for the Independents to come in here, as holy as thou, and say, 'This needs to happen.' I don't disagree it needs to happen, but let's be very careful and very mindful that we don't smear and tarnish good people and ruin their reputations not only during their political careers but forevermore—if, later on, they are cleared—because of the inefficiencies and the inadequacies of this particular legislation, which needs to be reviewed and looked at.
Mr GORMAN (Perth—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (13:26): Australians lost a lot under the previous coalition government. They lost a decade to climate inaction. They lost $3.4 billion for submarines that were never built. They lost the Australian car industry. And ministers lost count of how many secret portfolios former prime minister Morrison had. All of this added up to an erosion and a loss of trust in government.
Even as this federation was built, Australians have been proud of our strong democratic values. To this day, it is that value of democracy which we ask the newest Australians to sign up to and pledge their commitment to. Therefore, all Australians deserve to have confidence that their democracy is working for them. That is why we've introduced the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, to create that powerful, transparent and truly independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, with the powers necessary and the funding necessary to investigate corrupt conduct, to investigate the past and the present, to prevent for the future—independently and without political interference—and to restore integrity and trust in government.
I have to address the comments from the former Acting Prime Minister, who was just speaking at the dispatch box, and who said that Canberra bureaucrats 'don't care'. I have to disagree. We know that the people who work in our public sector do care—and, again, this bill is about backing them to do their job without fear or favour so that they can continue to do what they do every single day, which is to develop and implement policy which improves the lives of all Australians.
We know that an integrity commission was a key issue at the 2022 election. The results in this chamber show that. But that wasn't the first election. It feels like years ago—because it was—that a Commonwealth integrity commission was first announced. In 2018, the then Attorney-General promised that a coalition government, which was subsequently re-elected, would introduce and deliver an integrity commission, a promise from that 2019 election that was never delivered. It was a bit like their 'back in black' surplus mugs—all announcement and no delivery.
In the final seconds I have, I do want to thank some of those who have campaigned for this change and for this bill to be introduced on the floor of this parliament. I pay tribute to the member for Indi, who has done so much to be a voice for integrity in this place. I thank all the members of the committee who interrogated this bill and held hearings. I thank many who have advocated in their electorates and, as a result, have been elected to this place. I want to note that it was 10 years ago this month that former member for Fremantle Melissa Parke first raised this idea in a parliamentary committee report. It was not an idea embraced by the government at that time, but the idea's time has well and truly come. With that, I will conclude my remarks for now.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and, if the member does want to seek leave to continue speaking, I'm sure leave will be granted.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Budget
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (13:30): The Treasurer's so-called national conversation on the nation's finances will end with this sentence: 'Here are your new taxes.' That's going to happen in the budget in May. It's very clear. It will happen not because the government has a problem with revenue but because it has a problem with spending. The October budget shows that income tax revenue will go up by $40 billion a year over the forward estimates, but just one item in the budget, social security and welfare, goes up by $42 billion. That's more than the entire additional revenue from income tax consumed by just one item in the budget. It is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Going to tax is a reflexive and, frankly, vacuous approach to this problem. The problem is not a revenue one.
We should be reducing taxes, not increasing them. Back in 2016, the coalition government abolished capital gains tax for investments in early-stage companies. That's been very effective in stimulating investment in those early-stage tech companies in Australia, creating thousands of jobs in the process. There are many opportunities to further reduce capital gains tax, which can be done at a modest cost to the budget. It can have a very positive impact on investment in the Australian economy. As a country, we should be reducing tax to stimulate investment, not increasing tax to suppress investment.
National Asbestos Awareness Month
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:31): November is National Asbestos Awareness Month, with a focus on awareness, education and prevention of asbestos related risks and disease. Asbestos kills over 4,000 Australians every year—many of whom unknowingly became exposed to asbestos dust. Despite bans on its use, asbestos diseases have been predicted to increase, in part due to exposure during home renovations. Around one in three homes in Australia, particularly those built or renovated before 1990, still contains asbestos. A website, asbestosawareness.com.au, has been created for renovators and tradies. It contains a video guide and a 20-point safety check along with other important information. I urge anyone carrying out home renovations to visit the website.
On Friday in South Australia, two services will be held to remember the growing number of victims of asbestos disease. The Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia will hold a service at the Jack Watkins Memorial Reserve in Kilburn at 7.30 in the morning, and the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia will hold their annual service at Pitman Park in Salisbury at 10.30 am. I commend both organisations for their support to families affected by asbestos, for their ongoing asbestos education and information campaigns and for their advocacy for increased medical research and asbestos management regulations.
Telecommunications
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (13:33): Over the past 3½ years I've worked very closely with my smaller and remote communities to get them access to better mobile communications. We have seen fires and floods and drought, and during those times of disaster the lack of communication has certainly provided difficulties for our emergency services and put our remote residents in danger.
Over the past 3½ years I've worked with Telstra, Optus and the NBN, having town halls and trying to create innovative solutions to resolve the telecommunications problem. So you can imagine their dismay when this federal government called for a limited tender, particularly in New South Wales. It called for expressions of interest in 27 local government areas, and all 27 local government areas fell within three Labor electorates. There was not one in Liberal electorates, not one in Nationals electorates—all were in three Labor electorates. It's no wonder why residents in rural and regional communities become cynical about governments appointing or placing expressions of interest in their own interest. I call on this government to provide telecommunications services to our people in the country.
Workplace Relations: Amazon
Mr BURNELL (Spence) (13:34): As we are now in the midst of Black Friday sales, it is prime time that I talk about Amazon and the kind of corporate citizen they are they are in operations in Australia and in the US. Frankly, anywhere they have established routes by way of server farms or distribution warehouses—or as they are called if you understand and speak the dystopian Amazonian language, a fulfilment centre—suffice to say, they are not called that because of how their employees feel about working there. In Australia, those workers are represented by the SDA and my former employer, the Transport Workers Union, the TWU. They banded together in 2018 to form the Online Retail & Delivery Workers Alliance.
It is of note that to Australia, Black Friday sales are a US import. Prior to Amazon, Black Friday is not exactly something the Australian would celebrate. These imported Americanisms by Amazon include their views toward industrial law and a worker's right to organise. We have seen shocking stories out of the United States. I'm sure Amazon would likely have gotten away with continuing to treat their workers with contempt here too, had it not been for the stoicism and action taken by the TWU and SDA on behalf of their members. I stand in solidarity with the SDA and TWU, and I echo their calls to send Jeff Bezos and Amazon a message. Treating workers with contempt is not tolerable here or anywhere else in the world or, in Jeff's case, not on the edge of space either.
Raise Our Voice Australia
Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (13:36): Today I share a speech by Ewan, a 14-year-old constituent of Wentworth. I'd like to thank Raise Our Voice Australia for helping to facilitate this.
Throughout the course of history, society has had to work together to solve issues, not individually. I personally was an individualist until I saw how much of a difference a collective society makes. But why? Because it allows us to focus on the greater good of our community, implement social rules that focus on promoting selflessness and placing families and community roles on a pedestal on a pedestal. There are many illustrations of this, such as the nation's population rolling up their sleeves to receive a COVID vaccine or the resilience shown by communities after the devastating effects of the Black Summer bushfires. This required mass rebuilding, ensuring no families in the future will suffer from bushfires. A collective society allows us to share the common good and make sure we can have a brighter future. Personally I have faith in our society. I believe we can change the course of the future by learning from our past to make a positive difference.
Thank you, Ewan, for sharing those special words, and thank you to all the young people in Wentworth who have been helping me over the last few weeks to understand what is important to you. You've told me that access to transport and active transport is important. You've told me that clean climate is really important to you. You've told me that gender equity is really important to you. You've told me that youth mental health is absolutely vital. You've told me about consent education. Finally, you've talked to me about inclusion and tolerance.
Raise Our Voice Australia
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:38): Raise Our Voice Australia aims to amplify diverse, young, female, trans and non-binary voices to lead conversations in politics. Today I am reading a speech from Kira, a year 11 student from my electorate, who cares deeply about human rights.
As a representative of young Australians I would like the new Parliament to aim for a larger variety of representation and acknowledgement for minority groups across Australia. Only this year have we achieved a place in Parliament for First Nations women, and although this was an amazing change it was due a long time ago. Generation Z is full of brave, diverse but also struggling people who need to know that they are supported and seen. For people of colour who were taught not long ago that their rights weren't as important as others; for LGBTQIA people who were only given permission to marry who we love in 2016; to those with disabilities, who still struggle with the stigma and belief that they are less; and for the young and old First Nations people, who have been in Australia for over 60,000 years and are still struggling to have the statement of their hearts recognised, having someone in Parliament who we, as diverse young people, can relate to, understand and feel comforted by is of utmost importance. Australia is a nation of multicultural diversity. This needs to be reflected by our Parliament, the representatives of our country, now.
Thank you, Kira, for the opportunity to share your words here in your Parliament today.
Petition: Oil and Gas Exploration
Dr RYAN (Kooyong) (13:39): The people of the Colac Otway Shire in my electorate of Kooyong and of Victoria and South Australia have signed this petition in opposition to all seismic testing off the Australian coast, and for the withdrawal of those titles which have been already allocated. The petition has been considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions and it is in order. It includes more than 2,600 signatures. Seismic testing involves blasting the sea floor with a high-powered air gun every 10 seconds to map offshore oil and gas reserves. These blasts reach more than 250 decibels and can be heard for miles. They injure and kill marine wildlife, and reduce catch rates of commercial fish. Two oilfield service companies are proposing a massive area of seismic testing in the Otway Basin. These permits would allow seismic testing over an area that includes habitat for many commercially fished species, including rock lobster and giant crab. The fishing industry is vital to the Colac Otway community and its economy.
There is something gravely wrong when an area of seabed larger than Tasmania can be made available to overseas based firms for speculative seismic blasting before the Australian government has even considered whether fossil fuel extraction from those sites would be an appropriate. The people of Australia want no more fossil fuel projects off our beautiful coastline. We implore the government to protect our marine ecology and habitats.
Workplace Relations: Amazon
Ms FERNANDO (Holt) (13:41): Black Friday is fast approaching and while it can be an opportunity for good deals it certainly does nothing good for retail, warehouse and logistic workers across this nation, particularly Amazon workers. In Amazon warehouses, the SDA for many years have been fighting against the race to the bottom of their members' wages and conditions. When Amazon withdrew a permanent job offer to a labour hire worker after she revealed she was pregnant, the SDA represented her and took the company to the Federal Court. A successful settlement was reached earlier this year, but it is disappointing the case had to go to court in the first place.
For Amazon Flex drivers it is not much better, with intense pressure to drive dangerously overloaded trucks or be threatened with the sack or reduced hours. This system is unsustainable, and the Transport Workers Union has been working hard to see this practice come to an end. All these workers are asking for is a safe job that pays a living wage. I don't think that is a massive ask. My message to Australians seeking a great deal this Black Friday is to vote with your wallets and do not support a company that refuses to support its own workers.
Youth Voice In Parliament Week
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Leader of the Nationals) (13:42): The Raise Our Voice Australia campaign allows young people to express their vision for our nation's parliament. Today I'm thrilled to speak on behalf of 18-year-old Benjamin Springhall from my electorate. Benjamin writes:
Next year, I will be venturing out into the real world as I pursue a Bachelor's degree in International Relations.
First off, University sounds scary. It's scary because I have to find a whole new place to live, which at this point in time sounds impossible.
Being a kid from the small regional town of Kingaroy, I must leave home and travel to Brisbane or a larger city for university.
Whilst it is possible for a regional kid to do university online these days, it is hard to gain the new experiences and full education of being on campus.
The parliament should implement more support to regional kids leaving home, some of which have never been to a city before.
Increased funding in regional education could even one day give regional kids the opportunity to commence university not far from home.
Whilst I wouldn't be considered extremely disadvantaged, I worry about the financial stress my parents and I will go through on this unknown journey.
The financial stress in this day and age alone is worrying, however for someone from the regions, it is truly horrifying.
The politicians in Canberra should work with bipartisanship to ensure all youth have equal opportunity. The future of this nation lies in their hands.
Benjamin, you are right: the stress and financial pressures that our regional young people face when it comes to education are massive. As a parliament, we must work together, and, as the federal member for Maranoa, I will fight for this.
Youth Voice In Parliament Week
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (13:44): I would like to share with you the words of 21-year-old Emily Rush from McNamara. Emily participated in the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, which asks young people around Australia what they think our new government should accomplish. I would also like to note that Raise Our Voice Australia is run by Ashleigh, who lives in the great electorate of McNamara. Here are Emily's words:
I want Australia's new parliament to address the cost-of-living crisis.
In 2020 I moved to this electorate from a small country town excited to start a new life in Melbourne. When Covid struck, not only was I isolated and alone in my little apartment, but as a renter my expenses only grew. In the span of a year, I had to work multiple jobs to barely afford my rent.
There were weeks where I had to choose between buying my groceries and paying my rent.
As a result of all of this I had to put my education on pause.
I want to see a government that will help young people like me to ease the cost of living pressures we face because I know I'm not alone.
Without change I see myself as only being a renter.
My parents are able to own their own house, but her me that seems like more of a dream than a reality.
Young people are tired of waiting.
We need change now.
We need action.
I say to Emily: I really appreciate you putting those words together, and we'll work extremely hard in this place to deliver for you and the other young people in our great country.
Prostate Cancer
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:45): I rise to inform the House that tomorrow is the day that we here in Parliament House are raising awareness of prostate cancer. The day will be starting early for those who have booked to receive their prostate blood test, and from 12 pm there's a big barbecue—with over 250 persons anticipated to participate—which is now in its sixth year. I'm proud to be the co-chair, with Minister Jason Clare, of the Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness, and we've been doing that for the last three terms. Without the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, the London Agency and Pathology Awareness Australia, the testing and the barbecue—which allows hundreds of people to hear about prostate cancer—could not occur.
I want to give special mention to my long-term friend the Hon. Jim Lloyd, who recently departed the PCFA after three dedicated years and over 20 years as a volunteer. These events here in Parliament House were Jim's brainchild, and I sincerely thank him for his advocacy, as it has saved many lives.
Sadly, more than 3,000 Australian men continue to die of prostate cancer every year. Thank you to the previous government for their funding for research and treatments, but there's more that needs to be done. I cannot stress enough the imperative that you get tested early and get tested often. Come along tomorrow, get tested and have a snag in the courtyard.
Veterans
Ms LAWRENCE (Hasluck) (13:46): This week, my office has been happy to host Captain Chiara Di Girolami as part of the ADF parliamentary exchange program. As a former reservist, it's an absolute pleasure to reconnect with serving ADF personnel but also former serving personnel, as I have four RSL branches in the seat of Hasluck—in Kalamunda, Bellevue, Ellenbrook and Mundaring.
The reciprocal exchange and these connections are important to enable us to better tailor policy in this area. I have read the recommendations of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and it's a grim read. Transition from service to civilian life is a significant event for ADF members, one that requires major readjustments. For some it can be a challenging and traumatic time.
Ex-service organisations like the RSL expect us to deliver for veterans. Minister Keogh is delivering. The budget invests more than $233 million to engage 500 new frontline staff to deal with the compensation claims backlog and to increase support to veterans. Veterans affairs can never only be about the laying of wreaths and the building of memorials, as important as that is. The ceremonial must be matched by practical actions that meet our veterans' needs. Minister Keogh's attitude is very simple: our veterans have protected us and we must look after them. And I add my voice to this.
Iran: Human Rights
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (13:48): Women in Iran have risen up against the Iranian regime, protesting the cruel death of Mahsa Amini on 16 September. This poor 22-year-old lady's only crime was not wearing the hijab. Australia condemns the Iranian regime's response, which so far has killed 342 people, including 43 children and 26 women. There have been over 15,000 people arrested. Forty foreigners have also been arrested. The overreach of the morality police is extending each day. The kidnapping of Iranian women has been attempted in the UK by spies of the Iranian regime. The power of the powerless is taking on a very oppressive Iranian republic regime, who've suppressed any sign of dissent from 2009 to 2019. But this time I think they've met their match. This is such an unjustifiable crackdown that the people of Iran are calling for more than reform; they want regime change, all because of the overreach of a theocracy that is very repressive. The people in my electorate have also supported this. A lot of Iranians live in Australia, and they are rising up and have called for us to do more. So I say: we've heard your voice and will—
The DEP UTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Thank you. The member for Boothby.
Boothby Electorate: Schools
Ms MILLER-FROST (Boothby) (13:50): Last week I attended two of my local schools in Boothby. I attended the Our Lady of Grace School, a primary school, where the year 6 class had fundraised for a flagpole so that they could have the Aboriginal flag flying over their school on Kaurna land. I had a chat to the year 6 class. They visited Canberra a couple of weeks ago, and they talked to me about the things they really enjoyed. I said, 'What did you really enjoy in Parliament House?' They told me that they loved Questacon and that they loved seeing the Governor-General drive past when they visited Government House. We did, however, have a nice chat about Shawn the Prawn in the Marble Foyer out the front. They were very excited, because I had told them that Shawn the Prawn was what they should be looking for in Parliament House.
Later in the week I visited the IQRA College, which is an Islamic R to 12 facility in the southern part of Boothby. I was there with Her Excellency Frances Adamson AC, the Governor of South Australia, and Erin Thompson, who is the state member for Davenport. We were opening the new home economics class—very exciting. However, we got to see the facilities in action because we had a surprise MasterChef exercise for which I had to be one of the judges. So I suddenly had six meals in that morning. They were delicious. Congratulations to Hamzah and Abdulrahman, who were the eventual winners.
Australian Automation and Robotics Precinct
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore—Second Deputy Speaker) (13:51): I wish to inform parliament that the road and infrastructure construction works are currently in process at the groundbreaking Australian Automation and Robotics Precinct in Neerabup. The facility was launched last year and is being developed as an industry-leading research, development and testing ground for automation, remote operations and robotics. Industry interest has been strong across a range of sectors, including mining and resources, research, education, technology innovation, remote operations, and drone and robotics suppliers, with several already having trialled the site for testing and research. The 51-hectare technology park will be one of the largest test facilities of its kind, providing users with access to modern facilities, including common-user testbeds, laboratories and design co-labs. The common-user facility building is scheduled to open in 2023. Development of the Australian Automation and Robotics Precinct is set to create 70 construction jobs, with up to 5,000 ongoing jobs in the fields of robotics, automation and remote operations expected to be sustained after completion. The AARP will attract technologically advanced industries and sustain highly skilled jobs based in the City of Joondalup Innovation Hub. (Time expired)
Higgins Electorate: St Catherine's School
Dr ANANDA-RAJAH (Higgins) (13:53): To echo the words of Paul, the head of humanities: if you provide a great education you end up with independent thinkers. That was abundantly evident during my time with the students of years 10 and 11 at St Catherine's School, Toorak. Questions flowed thick and fast about my unorthodox journey into politics, how to navigate a male dominated job and whether the culture of parliament is changing. I was proud to say: yes, the injection of women in the class of '22 had given parliament a collegiate field. On the topic of gender equality, the spotlight turned to the structural barriers that hold women back, from mansplaining to microaggressions and the motherhood penalty. The girls were clued in, as are we.
On eco-anxiety, I advised them to reject the industry of despair. The discomfort we feel means that we care, but it also should be channelled into action. We discussed humanity overcoming almost insurmountable odds, from closing the hole in the ozone layer to eradicating smallpox or rebuilding after World War II. Finally they asked: 'Some governments make changes that others undo. How do we ensure that they are long-lasting?' We need to penalise short-termism and reward generational investment. A robust education such as these girls are acquiring is a great example of playing the long game. We need more long-termism across the board. Principal Carroll said, 'We don't educate the girls to be bystanders,' and, with their probing questions, their authentic, fearless selves shone through. There were certainly no bystanders in the room at St Cat's, and we are all the richer for it.
Groom Electorate: Employment
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (13:54): Last week I welcomed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Farrer, to my electorate of Groom. The city of Toowoomba is one she is very familiar with, having lived in the area for a period, just down the hill in Murphys Creek, and having been a student at Toowoomba State High School. Together we visited local manufacturer JRS, a family-owned steel fabrication and welding business who have worked on major projects, including the Toowoomba Bypass. As is the way with so many businesses I visit, no matter the industry, the burning concern that JRS CEO Jason Riddle wanted to discuss was workforce shortages. He has experienced firsthand how tough it is to hire a boilermaker or fitter in our region, and he's aware that it's a factor that, if not addressed, will constrain their future growth.
But, as is often the way in my patch, Jason and Jasmine Riddle aren't waiting for the government to act; they're taking matters into their own hands, launching the JRS Skills Academy. The first apprentice started this week, with more to come on board in the New Year. What this program will do, with the support of our local TAFE, is take all the learning out of the classroom and into the workshop. It's an innovative approach that I believe is an Australian first. The course also includes extra units to teach Industry 5.0 skills to apprentices so that, by the time they're fully qualified, they're ready to become leaders in the fabrication industry. JRS Skills Academy is also aiming to train apprentices surplus to their individual business needs so that more talent is flowing into our region, because, as JRS sees it, a rising tide lifts all boats.
It's crucial that the Labor government now step into this space and not allow the previous coalition government's strong record on skills and training—which brought unemployment to its lowest level in 50 years and the number of apprentices to new heights—to go to waste. Labor must listen and do more to support these businesses.
Amazon
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Chief Government Whip) (13:56): The phrase 'black Friday' elicits for me memories of devastation and loss of life during those terrible fires. But Black Friday has come to mean something else, and Amazon promote this something else. They promote an opportunity to make enormous profits with a big online sale.
I'm really proud that the SDA and the TWU, two great unions in this country, have joined forces to educate the community about Amazon's track record on the ground in terms of fair pay and fair conditions, and it's not a pretty story. So I want to encourage everyone this Black Friday to shop local, support the SDA, support the TWU, support the workers in this country and stop the Americanisation of our workplaces here—because in this country we believe in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and we believe everybody should be safe at work. That means driving safely if you're driving a truck, and that means having decent breaks if you're packing boxes for a conglomerate in this country. So thanks to the SDA and thanks to the TWU for joining forces on this incredibly important issue and putting a stop to the Americanisation of workplaces in this country.
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:57): I'd like to raise to the attention of the House the comments made by the Minister for the Environment and Water about her plan to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. I need to explain to the House that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is nearly completed. It is nearly up to the standard of water retrieval that was agreed to. But the 450 gigalitres that the minister referred to is not part of the plan. It's not part of the plan that I voted for in this place. It is a political announcement that was made prior to the 2013 election to gain votes in South Australia. It can't be delivered under the triple bottom line of no environmental, no social and no economic impacts on the community.
My concerns with the minister's intention to purchase water willy-nilly across the basin is that we're going to go back to the days when Senator Wong was the minister, when she destroyed the communities of Collarenebri, severely impacted the community of Warren and took 10 per cent of the rateable income from Bourke with the purchase of Toorale station, without any thought for those communities.
The Murray-Darling Basin irrigators are the most effective in the world. We grow more food and fibre for a megalitre of water than anywhere in the world, and there should be respect for that.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Workplace Relations
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (13:59): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Under Labor's radical industrial relations agenda, which the minister has confirmed not a single small business in this country supports, a coffee shop with fewer than 15 employees is exempt from compulsory bargaining. If that small business operates over three sites with seven employees at each, can that small business be compelled into multiemployer bargaining?
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business) (14:00): I thank the shadow minister over there for her question. As I've said in this place, we are continuing to consult and talk to small businesses as we negotiate getting this industrial relations bill through the parliament. When it comes to the size of small businesses, she would've seen the recommendations, of course, from the Senate committee yesterday. We're having a look at those, and we are actually talking to people about what they might mean. Indeed, as she will also know, if she has read the bill, there are several thresholds that need to be met for the single-interest bargaining stream. One of them is the number of employees. Of course, the others are that the Fair Work Commission needs to be satisfied that employers have a clearly identified common interest and that the bargain is not contrary to the public interest. That threshold needs to be met. We want to see businesses competing on quality, on innovation, on product and service—
The SPEAKER: I'd ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to state very clearly what the point of order is.
Ms Ley: Relevance, because of the tightness of the question. If there were three sites with seven employees—
The SPEAKER: The minister is being directly relevant. There were about four parts to the question. It was a complicated and detailed question. The minister is answering the question.
Ms COLLINS: If the shadow minister were to listen carefully, there are actually thresholds that need to be met. It's not just the number of employees; it needs to be also that they want to bargain. Either side of the bargaining table can opt in—
Ms Ley interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question.
Ms COLLINS: the employer by consent or the majority of employees, so they need to meet several thresholds to actually be in this interest stream of bargaining.
Mr Hogan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Page will cease interjecting.
Ms COLLINS: She needs to understand it is not as straightforward as she wants to say over there. She also needs to understand, as I've said clearly in this place, over two million small businesses will be unaffected by this single-interest bargaining scheme—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER : Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Ms COLLINS: over two million, 90 per cent of all businesses. The shadow minister over there has been out trying to whip up conflict and confusion about this, and she needs to be careful.
Opposition member s interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting. There is far too much noise. I cannot hear. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. When the House comes to order, the minister will continue.
Ms COLLINS: The shadow minister said this morning that the whole bill is terrible. Does she really think, as the shadow minister for women, that acting on sexual harassment in the workplace is terrible? Is that what she really thinks? Does she really think closing the gender pay gap is terrible? Is that what she really thinks? Does she really think that making adjustments to be better off overall test that businesses have asked for is terrible? Is that what she really thinks? Small businesses actually deserve better than what the shadow minister is giving them.
Early Childhood Education
Mr RAE (Hawke) (14:03): My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. Why are Labor's early childhood education reforms important to the economy?
Dr ALY (Cowan—Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth) (14:03): I thank the outstanding member for Hawke for his question. The member for Hawke is a parent to three young children, and I understand the youngest is just 10 weeks old. As a parent I know that he understands full well those first five years and just how critical they are to a child's development.
But let me say what an incredible day it is to be on this side of the House. Two years ago our Prime Minister stood firm on our commitment to families and children to make early childhood education more affordable. We took our commitments to the election, and today we made it a reality. Today we delivered. From July next year over 1.2 families right across Australia will be better off because of our reforms, not only reducing the cost of early learning but also allowing primary care givers, primarily women, the opportunity to make the choice to return to work, to take on additional hours or to further their study, as I did.
Our policy will unlock up to 37,000 full-time paid workers for our economy in the first year alone. No longer will parents lose between 80 and 100 per cent of their take-home pay simply for working a fourth or a fifth day. That's money back in their pockets, money back in household budgets and money back in the economy. What a stark contrast to those opposite, who allowed fees for centre-based care to increase by a whopping 41 per cent under their watch, putting early childhood education out of reach for many families—oh, it's the 'league of extraordinary men', standing up—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume her seat. Manager of Opposition Business?
Mr Fletcher: Yes, on relevance: it was a tightly drafted question. You have in previous question times directed a minister back to the question when the minister has strayed into the record of the previous government. There was no reference to the previous government.
The SPEAKER: The minister will turn back to the question.
Dr ALY: The question was about why our reforms are important to the economy, and it is quite relevant to point out that for households a 41 per cent increase in the cost of early childhood education does impact their budgets, and it does impact the economy. That is why our reforms are important to the economy.
This policy is game changing for the economy. It will impact two generations at the same time, boosting productivity and participation in work and ensuring that our children get the highest-quality early childhood education that they deserve. Our government values children. We value women's workforce participation. And we have worked from day one to make this massive economic reform a reality. We will never be deterred by negativity from those opposite. We'll continue on the path of making early childhood education more affordable and accessible. It is indeed a great day to be on this side of the House.
Workplace Relations
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (14:07): My question is to the minister for small business. Under the IR legislation a coffee shop with fewer than 15 employees is exempt from compulsory bargaining. If a coffee shop operates over three sites with seven employees at each, will they be forced into multi-employer bargaining?
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business) (14:08): I certainly can, as I did before—
Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The minister hasn't begun her answer. I'm not sure why you're complaining about it. I want to be clear on this. The member for Moncrieff was heard in silence when she asked her question. It is completely disrespectful to any minister to, before they've even begun speaking, be yelling at them. I give the call to the minister.
Ms COLLINS: As I said very clearly, there are thresholds that need to be met. The single employer needs to have the businesses with the threshold number of employees. We are currently negotiating and discussing, given the Senate recommendations on that number of employees. We've also said that either side of the bargaining table can opt in to the single-interest bargaining stream—the employer, by consent, or the employees, by majority support. They also need to meet the test whereby the Fair Work Commission needs to be satisfied that the employers have clearly identified common interests and the bargaining is not contrary to the public interest.
So, there are several thresholds that need to be met. On the employee number, as you would know from the recommendations from the Senate, there is another number that has been proposed, and we're currently in negotiations and are discussing that. But let's be very clear. Over two million small businesses in Australia will be exempt from these provisions.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume her seat—has she concluded her answer? The minister has concluded her answer.
Child Care
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (14:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the government's cheaper child care legislation help Australian families?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:10): I thank the member for her question. Indeed, I join with the minister in declaring this a great day that the parliament has passed our childcare reforms. This is a commitment that I gave, when the budget replies had major policies as their centrepiece, and this was the centrepiece of the first budget reply that I had the honour to give on behalf of this side of the House.
Childcare reform is economic reform. It boosts productivity. It boosts workforce participation. But it is also positive for our youngest Australians. In recent weeks I've had the opportunity to visit childcare centres across the country: the Avenue Children's Centre and Kindergarten in Balaklava, in the member for Macnamara's seat in Melbourne; Goodstart Early Learning in Somerton Park, in South Australia; Baringa Childcare Centre in Queensland; Goodstart Early Learning in Kalamunda, in Western Australia; and Crestwood World of Learning in Queanbeyan, near the ACT.
Everywhere I've been, we have had positive feedback from the early learning educators as well as from parents. This is what Louise, president of the Avenue Children's Centre, said about where her son, Jack, goes: 'As a working mum, the cheaper child care bill is a really welcome change. Anything that assists our family budget is very much appreciated. I think not only of my family but of how this legislation will benefit across our society, especially for other working women. It's a really progressive move and a long time coming.'
I pay tribute to Georgie Dent for her work from the Parenthood. She welcomed me into her home to meet with parents who needed the government to act. She told me, regarding her daughter, 'We were spending more on early childhood care than we were spending on rent at the time.' Another mother who was there, Deline Jacovides, said: 'At the moment our kids are doing two days at one centre and two days at another. The cost is well above a mortgage. I'm really passionate about this. As a financial adviser, I know that childcare costs directly impact women.'
So many parents who you meet around the country say they're relieved when their child reaches the age of five and goes to school, because all of a sudden their family income is much better off because they're not paying childcare fees. Why is it that in this country we think there is a difference between a three-year-old, a four-year-old and a five-year-old in terms of the family budget? This a practical move which will be followed by the Productivity Commission having a look at the universality of childcare provision being made affordable across the board, which would be the logical next step of what's an important reform for this country.
Whistleblowers
Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (14:13): My question is for the Attorney-General. The persecution and prosecution of whistleblowers in recent years is a national shame. Today Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia have released a report outlining 12 key steps that Australia must take to strengthen whistleblower protections. Will the government commit to implementing the report's recommendations in this term of parliament, in particular the establishment of the whistleblower protection authority?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (14:13): I thank the member for Mackellar for her question. I've received a copy of the joint report on whistleblowers by Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia. I know of the member's longstanding interest in this area. The report sets out a number of areas of whistleblower reform. It'll be considered by the government, along with other reviews and reports on this important topic. I've previously indicated, pretty clearly, that the Albanese government is going to deliver long overdue reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to ensure that Australia has best-practice whistleblowing protection for the public sector.
Next week I will be introducing a bill to the parliament which will implement the key recommendations, and this is long overdue, of the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act that was carried out by an eminent Australian public servant, Mr Philip Moss AM. It will also be implementing some parliamentary committee reports which have looked at the operation of the Public Interest Disclosure Act since we brought it to the parliament when we were last in government in 2013.
The bill that I am introducing next week will deliver some immediate improvements to the public sector whistleblowing scheme. It will be in place before the National Anti-Corruption Commission commences, as we hope, in mid-2023. This bill will represent the first stage of a significant package or public sector whistleblowing reform.
Following the passage of that bill, this first bill, the government will commence a second stage of further and broader reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which will include an exposure draft process, a discussion paper on whether there is a need to establish a whistleblower protection authority or, as some of your crossbench colleagues have suggested, a whistleblower protection commissioner. The bill that is going to be introduced next week and the Albanese government's border reform package reinforces our strong commitment to restoring integrity in government and the rule of law.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Hale, Mr Damian
The SPEAKER (14:16): I would like to acknowledge Mr Damian Hale, who is in the gallery today, a former member for Solomon. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Senior Australians
Ms BYRNES (Cunningham) (14:16): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government helping pensioners address cost-of-living pressures during these uncertain economic times?
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (14:16): I'd like thank the member for Cunningham for the question but also for her advocacy for seniors in her electorate. She is a tireless advocate for seniors and many others in her electorate. The government is deeply committed to addressing cost-of-living pressures for older Australians and giving them more flexibility in how they choose to support themselves in retirement.
We've already delivered on a number of key election promises, including to freeze the deeming rates for two years and to expand the access to the Commonwealth seniors health card to approximately 52,000 seniors. Seniors today are now benefitting from the flow-on effects that that seniors card is having. Of course, if all is going well in the Senate pensioners will not be penalised for downsizing their house by getting more favourable deeming rates and ensuring that the cost of that downsizing is not included in the assets test.
We are also making it easier for pensioners to work, if they choose to do so. Last night, the parliament passed the bill that is designed to strengthen incentives for pensioners over the age pension age to take up work. I would like to thank parliamentarians across the aisle, across this parliament, for constructively engaging on this issue. I would also like to acknowledge the national seniors association for their strong advocacy.
The new legislation means that from 1 December 2022 to 31 December 2023 pensioners over age pension age will be able to earn an extra $4,000 without losing any pension. Importantly, they will be able to choose when they take this additional work over the year. Pensioners do not need to do anything. The top-up to their work bonus will automatically be credited to their income bank on 1 December. Around 51,000 pensioners already participating in the workforce will immediately benefit from these increases. We look forward to more pensioners taking up this opportunity, because we know that if there is an increase in the number of older Australians in work this will not only benefit them but will benefit businesses who, in many cases, are struggling to meet workforce shortages.
Supporting older Australians to get into work was one of the key messages coming from the government's Jobs and Skills Summit in September. The passing of the legislation is an example where this government has listened and taken action. Of course, for pensioners this is a win for them. For businesses this is a win for them. And for the government it demonstrates a clear ability to listen and to act.
Workplace Relations
Ms WARE (Hughes) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Can the Minister advise whether there is an error in the industrial relations regulatory impact statement; and if so can the minister advise the correct figure?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is the minister responsible for that part of the question. So I will give him the call.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: He hasn't made the point of order yet.
Mr Albanese: He's doing a point of order.
The SPEAKER: I said he's the responsible minister, so I'm asking him to take the point of order. Then I will hear the point of order and then I will hear your point of order. Just so you're clear, if I call the Leader of the House in that capacity, he's doing it as the Leader of the House. If I'm calling him by his full name, I'm calling him as the minister responsible.
Mr Burke: On the question that has been asked, a regulatory impact statement has been referred to with no context as to what bill it was attached to, no context at all. So I'm not sure how it can be addressed to any minister. If it is something relating to my portfolio, there would have to be more context. I can't see how that's a question actually available to any minister.
The SPEAKER: I may allow the member for Hughes to rephrase that question, but I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Fletcher: To assist the House, it's page 52 of the regulation impact statement for the fair work secure jobs better pay bill—the bill that has recently passed the House and is going the Senate. Page 52 of the regulation impact statement.
The SPEAKER: I will allow the member for Hughes to rephrase the question and refer to the bill that she is referring to in her question.
Ms WARE: My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Can the Minister advise whether there is an error in the industrial relations regulatory impact statement? If so, can the minister advise the correct figure?
The SPEAKER: I will hear from the Leader of the House.
Mr Burke: Can I suggest that when a question is so obviously and deliberately not within the portfolio area of the minister it's being raised with, the question, rather than being redirected, should simply be ruled out of order?
The SPEAKER: On the point of order, I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Dutton: With real respect for my colleague opposite, I think he's playing a little cute on this one. This issue has been quite contentious in the Senate already. Whether he has been conveyed that message or not—I would be very surprised if he hasn't—but the fact is that the question was put to the Minister for Small Business. It relates to the position within the regulatory impact statement that goes to small business impact, the 15,000 medium sized or large sized business. There is an obvious mistake that the minister should be aware of and she should—
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr Burke: To the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, he actually just gave the game away. He actually said, even if you add all the extra context, it's about a medium sized business question, not about the small business minister. Even if we accept everything he has just said, they've still got it wrong! There is no way in the world that that question is a valid question in the way they've tried to direct it.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition?
Mr Dutton: Is the argument now that the small business minister can't answer a question in relation to medium sized businesses? Is that the argument being put by the Leader of the House? How long does this protection racket continue on for?
The SPEAKER: To assist the House, I'm going to ask the member for Hughes to rephrase the question one more time so that the House can deal with the issue.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right! The member will resume her seat. The House will come to order. Members on my right, I'm trying to hear from the Prime Minister on a point of order. The members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith is warned. I give the call to the Prime Minister.
Mr Albanese: Past speakers have, at this embarrassing point, just asked to move on. We should move on to the next question. I'm sure there's a member on this side with a question to do so.
Opposition member s interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left! I want to give the member for Hughes a fair go. She's a new member. I'm going to ask her, out of courtesy and out of the respect I have for her, to ask the question. If it is out of order I will rule it so.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor is warned. I give the call to the member for Hughes.
Ms WARE (Hughes) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Can the minister advise whether there is an error in the industrial relations regulatory impact statement, particularly under the fair work legislation amendment bill, particularly in relation to page 52 of that document, and, if so, can the minister advise the correct figure of that error?
The SPEAKER: I'm going to rule the question out of order. She's got time to rephrase it correctly so either it's directed to the right minister or it includes the right information. On the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Dutton: It's my submission to you, Mr Speaker, that I don't believe you can rule a question out of order on the following basis—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Order!
Mr Dutton: I have the call, Mr Speaker. I'm making a point of order.
The SPEAKER: I'm just going to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, and then I'll call the Prime Minister.
Mr Dutton: The provision within the regulatory impact statement relates to small business. That's the section that is being referred to. For your information, Mr Speaker, it's not beyond the remit of the minister—in fact, it's entirely within her portfolio responsibilities. If the Minister for Small Business can't answer a question that relates to the financial impact of the legislation—
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Thank you. On the point of order, the Leader of the House.
Mr Burke: It's on a different point of order. Is the member of Hughes even in her correct seat, the one she'd have to be in to be able to get the call?
The SPEAKER: Under the standing orders, members must be in their correct seats.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Dutton: To assist you, Mr Speaker, I've not heard a more petty point of order made in this place, to start with.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Dutton: With respect to you, Mr Speaker, you chose to give the member the call. That can't be now overruled by some post backed advice from the Leader of the House. You made a judgement to give the call—
The SPEAKER: You may resume your seat. Thank you. I understand your point of order. To assist the House, I would remind all members to reside in their seat, as per the standing orders. I'm going to move to the next question, and we'll come back to the member for Hughes.
Economy
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (14:29): My question is to the Treasurer. What insights were contained in the OECD's latest outlook for global growth, and what does it mean for Australia? What are some of the economic challenges facing our country, and how is the government responding?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:30): With the member for Hughes's three attempts at that question, she's now asked more questions than the shadow Treasurer has asked the Treasurer about the budget handed down a month ago in this place!
Thank you, Member for Fraser, for the question and for the economic firepower that you bring to this place. To Carol and her friends from the Sutherland shire: thank you for the conversation last night and for being here in question time today to witness this pretty remarkable spectacle, frankly.
Overnight the OECD released an updated outlook for the economy, and it contains more confronting news when it comes to global conditions. What they said in their report is that the global economy is facing mounting challenges: growth has lost momentum, high inflation is proving persistent, confidence has weakened and uncertainty is high. The OECD said:
The global economy is reeling from the largest energy crisis since the 1970s. The energy shock has pushed up inflation to levels not seen for many decades and is lowering economic growth all around the world.
So the report shows that the global economy has been reeling because of the biggest energy crisis since the seventies, brought about by Russian aggression in Ukraine, and the high and persistent inflation which has resulted has led to blunt and brutal application of monetary policy by the world's central banks, and that's having an impact on the prospects for global growth as well.
We know, on this side of the House, that the pressures on our economy are coming at us from around the world, but they felt most around the kitchen table. Australians are paying a heavy price for Russian aggression, but they're also paying a heavy price for a wasted decade of missed opportunities, warped priorities and coalition incompetence when it comes to the economy—the types of incompetence that have left this country with an aged-care crisis, a skills shortages crisis, an energy crisis, not enough to show for $1 trillion in debt and wages which have been too stagnant in this country for far too long. That's why the budget was all about making the budget more responsible and our economy more resilient to these international shocks. It's all about dealing with the aged-care crisis and dealing with the skills shortage and making the budget more sustainable; investing in skills and child care and all the other drivers of economic growth and participation in our economy.
This side of the House is absolutely determined to get wages moving again in our economy. One of the defining failures of the period in office of those opposite was the fact that ordinary working people were going backwards before government changed hands. We will make our budget more responsible. We will make our economy more resilient. And perhaps most importantly of all, the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is: we want to get decent wages and living standards for ordinary working people. They seek to diminish them at every opportunity.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
My First Speech Competition
Compton, Mr Everald, AO
The SPEAKER (14:33): Before I call the member for Hughes, I'd like to acknowledge in the House that present in the gallery today are the three winners from this year's My First Speech competition. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to Savannah Rogers, Maia Weatherstone and Tahlia Moses. While we're on a roll, I'd also like to acknowledge Everald Compton AO who's in the gallery today. A very warm welcome to you, Everald.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Workplace Relations
Ms WARE (Hughes) (14:33): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I refer to page 52 of the regulation impact statement from the fair work amendment bill. In calculating the cost of multiemployer bargaining, the report states, '$273,700 divided by 15.2 is $12,878 per business.' Is the minister aware that that figure divided by 15.2 actually equals $18,006? Or is this a mistake, with the government deliberately trying to hide the significant cost which businesses are set to pay?
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business) (14:34): I thank the member for her question. As she would be aware, regulatory impact statements are prepared by the department responsible for that legislation. That department is the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, and the minister responsible—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Ms COLLINS: is over here if you want to direct the question to him.
Climate Change
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What policies are being changed by the Albanese Labor government to prioritise action on climate change, and what are the broader implications of this approach?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (14:35): I thank my honourable friend for his question and for his leadership on matters of climate change. We know, on this side of the House, as other members know, that action on climate change is very urgent. We've had another reminder of that today in the report released by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for the Environment and Water, the State of the climate report, prepared by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology. We know from that report that heat already kills more Australians than any other natural disaster, and we know already that we are adding one day extra of heatwave every five years. That has terrible implications right across Australia, including in the area I represent. Many people don't have air conditioning, and many elderly people can't deal with an extra day of heatwave. It has very severe health implications.
We know that, if we don't act, the terrible bushfires that our country experienced in 2020 will be the average, the norm, in the 2040s and will be a good result by the 2060s if the world doesn't act to stop global warming. That's why we are acting and acting urgently. I'm pleased to report to the House, for example, that today the other place, the Senate, has passed the final piece of legislation necessary for offshore wind in Australia, the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle, and I look forward to making further announcements about offshore wind in coming weeks—very important announcements. I'm very confident that the Senate will pass our electric vehicle tax cut this week. There is no support from the opposition for a tax cut for electric vehicles, such is their prejudice, but other parties have worked with the government, and we will pass that important legislation, and electric vehicles will be cheaper for firms around the country.
This is what we're doing—getting on with the job. I'm also pleased to report that my friend the Assistant Treasurer has introduced the tax laws amendment bill which will replenish the funds necessary for Rewiring the Nation, to improve transmission across our country, to build the transmission we need to get more renewable energy on. These are all important steps that are necessary and vital, as we know, for Australia to act.
I'm also pleased to inform the House that next week, next Thursday, on behalf of the government, I'll be delivering the nation's first climate change statement, as required under the act we passed, the first climate act to pass in a decade. It is an important opportunity. I will also be tabling the Climate Change Authority's independent advice to the government and updated projections. This is what transparency is about; this is what progress is about—reporting to the House on progress, reporting to the House on challenges, reporting to the House on opportunities. I hope the House comes together at that time so we can all share policies on climate change that are necessary in this country and so the opposition can update the House on their policies and priorities, as we will do. This is an important moment for the House, for the country, the next step in dealing with the most important challenge we have, of climate change.
Workplace Relations
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Chief Nationals Whip) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I refer to warnings by domestic airlines that they will be forced to cut marginal flight routes and increase airfare prices as a result of the government's extreme industrial relations changes. Given regional families rely on these flight routes being accessible and affordable, can the minister guarantee there will be no impacts to regional flight routes or airfares from Labor's extreme industrial relations agenda?
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) (14:39): I will start answering the question, and then I will pass to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is responsible for both the legislation and the Same Job, Same Pay policy, which I suspect the member was referring to. It has been terrific to see our airlines come back at strength. We are seeing almost 100 per cent of domestic demand coming back. That is very pleasing to see. I do note that Qantas has become very profitable and had the previous government done what we suggested and actually provide JobKeeper with an equity stake in Qantas, we would actually be making quite a bit of money at the moment. It might have been something that would be a very good idea.
But I absolutely am conscious that Qantas is in the building lobbying, as are a number of other businesses at the moment. Can I assure you, our interest is getting wages moving and is making sure that the services that are delivered right the way across the country and that the wages of regional people are actually benefiting from our industrial relations legislation. I will pass to the minister.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (14:40): I don't know what someone has to do to get a question in this place. The portfolio appears to be of interest. But I don't know what it is, I don't know what it will take for those opposite to realise that it is not outrageous for the Australian workforce to want a share of profits that happen in Australia. It is not outrageous for the Australian workers to see projects, to see businesses in Australia doing well, and to ask at the same time why should they be constantly falling behind? There is nothing wrong with the Australian workforce believing that they should have a better chance of keeping up with what is happening in expenses in this country.
Mr Coulton: The point of order is on relevance: I asked for the impact on flight routes; I did not ask a question about wage rates. I asked about the impact on flight routes, and neither the previous minister nor the current one has answered that question.
The SPEAKER : Both ministers are in order. I am listening carefully to their answers. I give the call to the minister.
Mr BURKE: One of the words that was used in the question, from my recollection, was the word 'extreme'. I will tell you what is extreme. Ten years of wages not moving is extreme. Ten years of Australians going further and further behind—that is extreme! Australian workers knowing right now that they are, in fact, now in real terms, earning less than what they were earning a decade ago. That is extreme. But that was not an accident; that was a deliberate design feature of how those opposite ran the economy. They are onto it. They know the legislation will deal with it because the shadow Treasurer's objection to the legislation is because it will get wages moving. That is his objection to it.
I will tell you what I want with flight routes: I want more Australians to be able to afford to get on a plane. I want Australians to be able to afford some of those discretionary expenses. Those opposite know the title of the bill is what it will deliver and that is what they oppose. They oppose secure jobs. They oppose better pay. We intend to deliver both.
Climate Change
Ms ROBERTS (Pearce) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. What were the findings of the 2022 State of the Climate report released today by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology? What role can our science and industry sectors play to reduce the impact of climate change?
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (14:43): I want to thank the member for Pearce for that question, who I know is concerned about the issue and keen to see us act. If I may, I want to reflect. I was grateful former member Hale up there was mentioned, who spent more time in the House. This may be a record for you, my friend, given we had a similarly complicated relationship with 94(a). Going to the heart of the matter, Minister Plibersek and I did release the seventh biennial State of the Climate report 2022, and it is disturbing reading, particularly the work being done by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to track what is happening in our climate and, importantly, how it affects our nation.
The report also provides a source of information to improve decision-making by governments, by businesses and by communities. Notably, what this report pointed out is that Australia's climate is warming at an increasing rate, with 1.47 degrees since records began over a century ago. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are at the highest concentrations seen on earth in at least two million years, and sea surface temperatures have risen over one degree since 1900. In a nutshell, what that means is there is an increased risk of more fires, more floods and more extreme heat more often. It also is showing that our oceans are getting warmer and more acidic and snowfall, based on the trendlines since the fifties, is going the wrong way. I am informing the House as a science minister, but also in terms of raising the issues around the impacts on industry, from fisheries through to tourism. It's a big concern.
The concern is one thing. We have an ability to act, all of us, in being able to respond, and also to prepare in particular industries. There is a role to play. If you're a household that wants to use energy more efficiently, there is a role for you. If you are an industry that wants to use less energy, there is certainly a role for you. If you are in science and research and want to think of new ways to do things more efficiently, there is a job for you.
In particular, we are about to release the legislation around our National Reconstruction Fund. Contained within that is $3 million of capital that will be available for people who want to manufacture the type of technology and equipment—low-emissions technology and renewables—that can make a difference. And it is to make sure that the technology we think of here gets made here. In times past, we that opportunity was forgone. We can act as one on this. It just takes a government to take the science seriously, to organise and to work with business and the community to make all of that happen.
Age of Criminal Responsibility
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (14:46): My question is to the Attorney-General. The UN has expressed concern about the very low age of criminal responsibility in Australia. In WA, we are currently locking kids up in an adult prison. Will you make public the final report, prepared in 2020 by the council of attorneys-general, which allegedly shows the majority of state and territory attorneys-general were in favour of raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (14:46): I thank the member for Curtin for her question. The report the member has mentioned, a report authorised by the Western Australian government, was the product of a former 'meeting' of Attorneys-General—sorry for making that precise distinction. The decision not to release it was made under the previous government. The paper was not written by the Commonwealth government, so there are steps that have to be taken in order for it to be released. I have instructed my department to include the release of the paper as an item for decision at the next meeting of the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, which met for the first time on 12 August this year. It was the first time there has been a physical meeting of attorneys-general for some three years. The former structure of the former government, of a 'meeting' of attorneys-general was the one responsible for this paper. So we will wait for that next meeting of the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, when the release of the paper will be discussed.
But I do appreciate the member's interest in this question of the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I am working closely with state and territory counterparts through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General to develop proposals about the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I'm working closely with the Minister for Indigenous Australians to address the very serious issue of overrepresentation of First Nations children in the criminal justice system, consistent with the obligation of all governments under the National Agreement on Closing The Gap.
At that meeting on 12 August, all attorneys-general agreed that an official's working group will continue to develop a proposal to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility, paying particular attention to that overrepresentation of First Nations children. The next meeting will be in December 2022. I note that some progress with this has already been made, because the government of the Northern Territory has introduced a bill already, and there is now a bill before the legislative assembly of the Northern Territory to raise the age of criminal responsibility.
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How will the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 lift wages for low- and middle-income earners, and has the misinformation stopped?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (14:49): I thank the member for Calwell for the question, and I say to the member for Calwell: I wish the misinformation had stopped. I wish it had. But I reckon it's not about to. I reckon it's going to keep coming. We've heard a bit.
Mr Sukkar: All that misinformation led to hundreds of amendments to your own bill.
The SPEAKER: The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Only this morning, there was an interview with none other than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked about the Senate committee report that came out yesterday. Members will be aware that the Senate committee has recommended a change in the definition of 'small business' from 15 to 20. The government is considering that change. The words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this morning, when interviewed on Sky News by Peter Stefanovic, were these: 'They did make that very modest change, lifting 15 to 20, but that's not going to make a difference.'
Ms Ley interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Mr BU RKE: Let me tell you the difference it makes. If the government does accept that recommendation from the Senate, it means 97½ per cent of Australian businesses are excluded from that stream. Two and a half million businesses would be excluded from that stream. That's a pretty big difference. That's a pretty significant difference.
Ms Ley: Why can't the Minister for Small Business answer?
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Ms Ley: He's misrepresenting me.
The SPEAKER: The minister will continue.
Mr BURKE: I've got to say it's a fair call. If I were the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, any time someone quoted me I'd say, 'Oh, I've been misrepresented,' because there is nothing more dangerous for the integrity and reputation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition than her own words, and the rest of the team is following suit. I've looked at this one as well, from the member for Hughes, who we've heard from a number of times today. The member for Hughes said in the debate in this House, 'There is no evidence that these reforms will actually deliver higher wages.' Well, let's go to the architect of low wages being a deliberate design feature and let's look at what the current head of the OECD is saying about multi-employer bargaining. A 2020 OECD report said multi-employer agreements are 'necessary to negotiate targeted raises in female dominated and low-paid sectors'. A 2019 report said that multi-employer arrangements are 'associated with higher employment, lower unemployment, a better integration of vulnerable groups and less wage inequality'.
Ms Ware interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hughes will cease interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The real arguments have come, though, from the member for Longman, who has taken up Senator Cash's sense of nuance and said:
… we know that socialist and communist governments' underlying ideology is to control people's lives, and this legislation feeds into that ideology.
Opposition mem bers interjecting—
Mr BURKE: All the calm over there is just breathtaking!
The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!
Mr BURKE: Wages need to get moving. This legislation will do it. (Time expired)
Mr Young interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Longman will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for Herbert.
Climate Change
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Before the election, Labor promised to reduce power prices on at least 97 occasions, but before the election Labor was completely silent about signing up Australia to a $2 trillion UN fund to send money to countries all around the world. Why is the government sending taxpayers' money offshore while taking no action to reduce the power bills of struggling Australian families?
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Deakin and the member for Aston! There is far too much noise in that corner of the world. Just cease interjecting. The minister has not begun answering the question. He's fair game once he starts, but can we just have silence before the minister begins?
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEA KER: The Leader of the Opposition is not helping.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (14:53): He's obsessed. There's a lot in that question and a lot I could talk about, but I'll deal with the latter part of the honourable member's question: because on this side of the House we do believe in engaging on how to deal with the impacts of climate change here and around the world. That's what we believe in. We believe in doing that domestically and we believe in doing that internationally, and that's what we were doing last week at the COP meeting. We believe that this is an important security issue in our region as well—in the Pacific and in South-East Asia. That's what we believe.
There is a genuine difference of view, it appears, between the opposition and the government on this question. We believe in engaging in the international conversation. We believe in shaping that conversation. That's what we were doing last week—negotiating, talking to the Pacific, talking to developed countries, talking about good design, talking about ensuring wealthy countries that weren't wealthy in 1992 are making a contribution, and making sure that the loss-and-damage payments are focused on the most vulnerable countries, countries in our region like Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Samoa. That's what we believe.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Barker is on a warning.
Mr BOWEN: We believe countries in our region, like Fiji, which is estimated to lose five per cent of its GDP every year due to climate change induced natural disasters, have a right to a seat at the table. We believe it's in our interest to engage with them. If the opposition have an alternative view, I invite them to outline it. They say this is not a conversation we should be involved in. They say we should not be talking at the COP or talking to Pacific nations. I invite the Leader of the Opposition, on this topic—he's the alternative Prime Minister of this country. If successful, it would be his role to be the chief diplomat of the nation. I invite him, today, to invite the high commissioners and ambassadors of the Pacific to hear why he doesn't think we should be engaging in this conversation. Invite them all in, and let him explain why he thinks our country should have no role in helping the Pacific. The Leader of the Opposition could weave a few jokes into his discourse about climate change and the Pacific!
Mr Hamilton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Groom is warned.
Mr BOWEN: If he wants to do that, he should explain it. He should explain to the Pakistani community—I've met with Pakistani leaders about the $30 billion worth of damage to their economy. He should explain why that's not our concern, why we have no interest in this matter. If this is his approach, he should explain that to the Australian people. Our view is clear: we will engage, we will be involved and we will be the constructive players in climate debates, because Australia is back at the table after 10 long years.
National Anti-Corruption Commission
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Government Whip) (14:56): My question is to the Attorney-General. How will the National Anti-Corruption Commission prevent corruption from occurring at a federal level?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (14:56): I thank the member for Werriwa for her question. Corruption has a corrosive impact on society. It undermines democracy and erodes public trust in government. The Albanese government knows tackling corruption means more than just investigating corruption; it means working to prevent corruption occurring in the first place. The Australian people don't just want to see corrupt activity being caught after it happens; they also want standards to be improved so they have confidence corruption is not occurring in the first place. That's why the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be tasked with education and prevention functions. It's an aspect of our proposed new body which has perhaps not been as prominent in public discussion as the investigation functions, but it is just as important.
The commission will be required to provide guidance and information to support the public sector to identify and address vulnerabilities to corruption. It will educate the public sector, and raise awareness of corruption risks and how to actively take steps to prevent them.
The commission will be able to hold public inquiries into corruption risks and vulnerabilities. It will be tasked with providing broad public education about its role, about corruption risks, and avenues to report corrupt conduct. That work will be informed by the insights the commission draws from its investigations and the intelligence it collects about corruption. In this way, the commission will be able to prevent corruption from happening in the first place.
The Australian people sent a very clear message at the last election: they want a national anticorruption commission without delay, and they want a national anticorruption commission with teeth. They saw that the former Liberal-National government failed to deliver on the promise that was made by the former Prime Minister and the former Attorney-General in December 2018. They failed to establish—
The SPEAKER: The Attorney-General will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
Mr Fletcher: On relevance. You have previously directed ministers back to the terms of the question, and that ought to happen here. There was no reference to the previous government in the question.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right! The question was specific about how the NACC will prevent corruption occurring at the federal level. I've given some tolerance to the minister, but I will ask him to return back to the question.
Mr DREYFUS: Let's be clear about this. The Australian people voted at the last election for a government that had an actual plan and an actual commitment to deliver a National Anti-Corruption Commission. The Albanese government is delivering on its promise to tackle corruption and restore trust and integrity to public institutions. I take this seriously. The Albanese government takes this seriously. It's time to get this done.
Economy
Ms LE (Fowler) (15:00): My question is to the Treasurer. I'm sure many residents in Western Sydney and across Australia are awaiting their electricity bills with trepidation. With Christmas only about four weeks away, families are feeling the pinch as they spend more on food, petrol—whose price has increased—and household bills, on top of saving money to buy presents for their loved ones. You have said you will announce 'temporary, meaningful, sensible regulations to ease the energy crisis'. What is the date the government will announce these new measures?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (15:00): Thank you very much to the member for Fowler for her question and for her interest and obviously for the way that she's engaged on these issues for some time now. The reason we are prepared to make that temporary, meaningful, responsible intervention in these markets between now and the end of the year is that we do think it's unacceptable, the sorts of price rises which are anticipated by the Treasury and contained in the budget papers that I released about a month ago. The Australian people are paying a very hefty price for Russia's aggression in Ukraine and for a decade of coalition incompetence when it comes to energy markets. The reality is—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hume!
Dr CHALMERS: that the failures of the member for Hume and others on that side of the House mean that we are more vulnerable to these international shocks in global energy markets than we should be, and—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hume will cease interjecting.
Dr CHALMERS: that's because, over the course of a decade, those opposite took more capacity out of the energy markets than they put in, and that made us more vulnerable. So, that's how we find ourselves—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hume is warned.
Dr CHALMERS: in the position that we're in, and it is unacceptable. That's why I am working closely with the industry minister, the resources minister, the energy minister, the Prime Minister, the trade minister and others to find a way to intervene in these markets in a meaningful way, in a temporary way and in a responsible way. And to those opposite—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat, just for a moment. The member for Fowler on a point of order?
Ms Le: Treasurer, I just wanted a date, if it's possible.
The SPEAKER: That wasn't a point of order, but you are seeking relevance. I'd just invite the Treasurer, in his remaining one minute and 10 seconds, to conclude his answer regarding the member for Fowler's question.
Dr CHALMERS: We will progress this work as quickly as we can, and we will make an announcement before the end of the year.
Trade
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Chief Government Whip) (15:03): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Tourism. Last night legislation to implement free trade agreements with India and the United Kingdom passed the parliament. How will these free trade agreements benefit Australian businesses and workers and support the Albanese Labor government's trade diversification strategy?
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (15:03): I thank the member for Lalor for her question. The Albanese Labor government believes in free, fair and open trade. We know that more trade means more export opportunities for Australian businesses and more high-paying jobs for Australian workers. One in four Australian jobs are related to trade, and jobs in export industries pay five per cent more, across national average income. That is why this government worked so hard over the last six months to successfully pass legislation to implement these free trade agreements with India and the United Kingdom just last night. This is a triumph for Australian exporters and for Australia's trade diversification strategy.
The Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement will deliver immediate benefits for Australia. Tariffs will be eliminated on 90 percent of Australian goods exported to India by value and significantly reduced on additional products, such as wine. Our services exports to India, worth $5 million in 2021, will benefit from improved predictability and access. This trade agreement presents incredible opportunities for Australian businesses to reach 1.4 billion consumers in the world's fastest-growing economy with a GDP of $4.3 trillion Australian dollars. That is especially in my portfolio of resources. Indeed, I met with my Indian counterpart, Minister Joshi, earlier this year to strengthen cooperation on the development of critical mineral projects and supply chains even in my electorate in Kwinana.
The Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement will deepen our already strong economic relationship with the UK, offering even more opportunities for our businesses to diversify our markets. It will cut tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exports to the UK. These agreements mean more Aussie exports and more jobs in agriculture, wine, mining critical minerals, education services, tourism, health care, renewable energy exports and technology.
I want to acknowledge the efforts of former ministers for trade, Senator Birmingham and the member for Wannon. The commencement of negotiations for free trade agreements go over many years, different terms of government, and withstand changes in government. The Indian free trade agreement was commenced under Labor's Julia Gillard as Prime Minister, and it is Labor's trade minister, Senator Don Farrell, and the Albanese Labor government that has delivered the legislation for the India agreement and the UK free trade agreement.
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms MADELEINE KING: We helped you get all those through the parliament. Don't you forget that either. We started negotiations for that as well. That also started under Prime Minister Gillard. You need to know, and the people of Australia need to know that Labor supports free trade agreements. We always have and we always will.
Energy
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (15:06): My question goes to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the Alex Surf Club on the beautiful Sunshine Coast, of which I am a proud member, will be forced to pay $250,000 more for electricity next year compared to this year. When can the Alex Surf club see the promised $275 cut to their power bills?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:07): I'll start very quickly by giving a shout out to the Alex Surf Club. I was very pleased to be there and to meet the heads of the Alex Surf Club.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: It's the Alexandra Heads surf club. We did a press conference there. See, I know Queensland! Alexandra Heads is different from Maroochydore. Two different events, two different places—a bit like Yeppoon and Yeppoon. I ask the Minister for Energy to respond.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (15:08): I thank the honourable member for his question. We are concerned about the impact on energy prices of the global energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: Honourable members opposite interject. The shadow treasurer interjects. He had a different view prior to the election. Prior to the election he was asked about Ukraine and what does it mean for the world's gas supply. The member for Hume said that obviously it's putting upward pressure on oil and gas prices around the world. That's what he said. Then we also had the other energy minister in the government, who said 'In the last 12 months we have seen Russia invade Ukraine, and to think that's not going to have an impact, particularly on energy prices and supply chains and disrupt the economy, would be unfair. I don't think that would be realistic.' That was the other energy minister, who was also the Prime Minister, the member for Cook. I'm not sure in what capacity he was talking, but that was his view. He was actually correct.
We understand the impact on the surf club. We understand the impact on residents. We understand the impact on industry. That is why we will not stand by and watch this play out. We will not stand by and watch the fact that thermal coal was selling at $286 a tonne in December 2021 and is now selling at $505.15 a tonne. That's going to flow through unless the government takes action. Gas was selling for $11.56 a gigajoule in December. Today it is $18.67. This is what is driving the energy price rises right around the world, as the International Energy Agency have made clear. They said just last week that 90 per cent of the—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hume is on a warning!
Mr BOWEN: upward pressure on electricity costs around the world is coming from fossil fuels—coal and gas. That's what the International Energy Agency says. So of course governments around the world—conservative and left-leaning, governments all around the world—are dealing with this crisis and responding, just as this government is assiduously working through the issues and will respond and will not stand by and let this impact on Australian households and businesses.
Visas
Ms FERNANDO (Holt) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government cleaning up the visa backlog mess left behind by the former government?
Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (15:10): I thank the member for Holt for her question—
Dr Aly interjecting—
Mr GILES: The outstanding member for Holt, as the Minister for Early Childhood Education reminds me. I thank her for her question and her deep interest in this.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
Mr GILES: For you, Member for Aston, to find this funny is absolutely extraordinary, because you played a major role in creating this backlog.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Aston will cease interjecting.
Mr GILES: You played a major role, Member for Aston, in creating this backlog, although of course you were not alone.
When we arrived in government, because of the failures of the previous government there were almost a million visa applications waiting to be processed, the result of a decade of cruelty and a decade of neglect. These backlogs were choking our immigration system, choking our economy too. Members opposite might want to think about the terrible impact on small business of this backlog, but they should also think about the impact on our society as a multicultural nation. Fixing this mess—everyone should be clear—is an urgent task of this government.
I'm pleased to advise the House that the backlog is now under 740,000, because we have engaged more than 300 new staff, working in roles supporting visa processing. More staff are being onboarded. I'm going to be clear: we can't clear this backlog overnight, but we are seeing results. We have seen 3.4 million visas processed and finalised since 1 June, and we are on track to hit our target of 600,000 applications on hand by the end of the year, creating certainty for businesses and certainty for families, because this government understands how important family connections are in our country, where one in two Australians were born overseas or have a parent born overseas.
Since being elected, we've made a series of changes to make sure that loved ones can once again spend time together in this country, in our country. We've streamlined processing policies, whilst keeping integrity mechanisms in check. And we will replace ministerial direction 80, simplifying the prioritisation system for family visa applications. I've been made aware, since becoming minister, of numerous applications for partner visas that have been waiting for finalisation since 2013—10 years that Australian citizens and permanent residents have been separated from their loved ones. In fact, just two days ago we finalised a case that had been on the books for nine years—nine years of people being separated from their loved ones, including, in many cases, their children. These are the real human consequences of a decade of neglect.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENTS
Personal Explanation
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Do you claim to be misrepresented?
Ms LEY: I do.
The SPEAKER: You may proceed.
Ms LEY: Earlier, in question time, the member for Watson claimed to quote me but, in doing so, did not provide the full quote. Rather, he used a truncated version. The full quote is as follows. I want to be clear. I'm not making a political point. I simply want to read my full quote into the Hansard. I said: 'It's unsurprising they made that very modest change, lifting 15 to 20, but that's not going to make a difference. We know the effect this is going to have on small business is incredible—and also, if in fact small business supports it, why can't the Minister for Small Business name one single small business, just one? There are over two million, by the way, small businesses in the country. Just name one small business that actually supports this and thinks it will work for them.'
The SPEAKER: Just for the benefit of the House, I'm always happy to hear misrepresentations. That was one going right to the wind in terms of its length, just for future reference.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Dietitians Australia
Rural Youth Ambassadors
The SPEAKER (15:15): I'd like to inform the House that present in the gallery is a delegation from Dietitians Australia. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome. There is also a delegation from the Rural Youth Ambassadors. On behalf of the House, I welcome you to question time in Parliament House.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (15:15): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:15): I move:
That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of settings be given to the honourable member for Forde, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
National Security
The SPEAKER (15:15): I have received a letter from the honourable member for McPherson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's decision to settle ISIS families in Western Sydney without consulting with the community.
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 s ANDREWS (McPherson) (15:16): I start by saying that the protection of Australians should be the No. 1 priority of any government. When the coalition were in government, we took that very seriously and we always acted to make sure that Australians were protected and that they were kept safe. Community safety forms a very key part of that national security and making sure that Australians are protected.
After weeks of media reporting about the potential repatriation of dozens of Australian people in Syria, on Saturday 29 October 2022 the government confirmed by media release that it had 'repatriated four Australian women and their 13 Australian children to New South Wales from an internally displaced persons camp in Syria'. It went on:
Informed by national security advice, the Government has carefully considered the range of security, community and welfare factors in making the decision to repatriate.
That full release can be found on the Home Affairs website. I would draw the attention of those here today to what the government said they had considered, which was a range of security issues—and I do hope that they did take into account the security implications of bringing those women and their children to Australia, because the advice was very clear about the risks that were associated with Australians going into those camps to bring out women and children. There was also very clear advice about the impacts on our community of these people coming back to Australia, and there was very clear advice about the costs that there would be to make sure that these people were properly monitored when they were in Australia. So security was one of the issues the government claimed that it considered. The government also said that it took into consideration welfare factors, but little has been said about that. Of particular concern in this matter of public importance are in relation to the words 'community factors'.
Last week, I met in Sydney with the mayors of Liverpool, Fairfield and Campbelltown councils, and I discussed multiple issues arising from the Labor government's decision to repatriate a group of individuals from those camps in Syria. One thing that was made abundantly clear to me by the mayors, on behalf of their communities, was the disappointment that they felt by the way the government had treated them, largely pushing aside their concerns and refusing to make any contact with them—dismissing the concerns that they genuinely had on behalf of their communities.
Those three mayors were very passionate about representing their communities, and I commend them for that. They have been particularly outspoken about their concerns regarding the way that they have been treated by the government. They have tried, on a number of occasions, to reach out to the government and to speak with local members, with ministers or with the Prime Minister. It's actually got to the point where they have raised concerns so many times, without hearing back, that they've offered to jointly pay to attend a fundraiser that's supposed to be attended by the Prime Minister. An article in the Daily Telegraph said:
Fairfield Mayor Frank Carbone, Liverpool Mayor Ned Mannoun, and Campbelltown Mayor George Greiss told The Daily Telegraph that they would do "whatever it takes" to raise concerns of their communities with Mr Albanese.
"If it takes $1500 to attend his event just so we can put forward our community view, we are happy to pay it," Mr Carbone said.
I have publicly stated on a number of occasions that the views of local government should certainly be taken into account and that those mayors should be listened to, particularly on such important issues as resettling wives of terrorists and their children in their community.
Let's understand Western Sydney and the concerns that the people in those communities very rightly have. Some of the people who are living there had to flee from ISIS. They witnessed firsthand overseas what impact ISIS had on them. They saw their friends killed. They perhaps saw members of their family killed, in some cases by being beheaded in front of them. They are so concerned about the impacts of ISIS that they feel particularly terrorised. But here they are. They are in Australia, where they had felt safe. They are in Western Sydney, in a community where they felt safe, and now they are facing—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Sorry. I really did not want to interrupt you, but there's a lot of interjection going on, and I'm really struggling to hear your contribution. So I'm just asking both sides to dial it down. I'd like to hear what the member for McPherson has to say.
Mrs ANDREWS: These people are now terribly concerned that they are going to be living side by side with people who are associated with those they actually fled from overseas. But what we have is a government that has very little concern for those individuals. The mayors have put their concerns very robustly through the media, and I don't doubt that they have put that in any forum that they possibly can.
It was also, I have to say, particularly disappointing that whilst I was in Sydney last week—I was meeting with the mayors face to face in Western Sydney, but also one of them actually came to meet with me in the Sydney CBD—there was actually a home affairs summit being held in Sydney. Community organisation could have been held so that the ministers who were addressing that conference could have spoken and met with the mayors. I'm sure that the mayors would have taken the opportunity to come in and meet directly with the ministers, but that was not available to them. So ministers could take the time to speak at a home affairs summit but could not take the time to actually meet with mayors who were representing their communities. I would have thought that many in this place would understand how important local government is when you're talking with communities, because they are the ones who are on the front line in delivering a lot of the support. They're very close to their communities and they deserve considerable respect for the work that they have undertaken. But that certainly appears not to have been the way that they have been treated by this government.
There are multiple questions that have been raised with me. They have been raised very publicly. The mayors themselves have also raised these questions, and any reasonable person, quite frankly, would be raising these questions, to which there has been no response from the government. Those questions include: What is the cost to the taxpayer of monitoring this repatriated cohort—if, in fact, they are being monitored? What are the details of any welfare and integration program access and delivery cost—if there are any? What is the chosen timing and location of this first cohort, and how was it determined? How will the government manage the situation when this group may well share a facility with those refugees who fled the devastating carnage that ISIS spread across Syria and resettled in safer communities here in Australia? That is a fundamental concern of those people who have fled from ISIS and were happily settled in Western Sydney.
Are there more to arrive? We did hear that there was a significant release of information, which is very concerning. I have raised my concerns about the level of detail that was discussed publicly about these supposed repatriations because they were supposed, at the time that I was first contacted about this—I responded to media requests myself in relation to these repatriations, but there was a level of detail being discussed publicly which is of concern. I was pretty happy to have it confirmed in Senate estimates by, I believe, the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs that Prime Minister and Cabinet would be looking into and investigating how that information came into the public domain. It is really concerning. It potentially put at risk those Australians going in to extract those women and children from the camps, and it puts future repatriations, if there are any, at risk.
But what we do know from that is that there are more women and children in those camps in Syria. The government needs to come clean on what it is going to do. Is it planning to repatriate more women and children? Where will those women and children go? The government should not be hiding behind national security. At least now that those women are in Western Sydney they should be speaking to the local mayors.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Before the minister gets the call, I understand that the level of interjections that were occurring before were in response to behaviours that I did not hear or recognise, and so I can't comment on that. I'm just going to ask a general request of everybody in this House to treat each other with some respect. This is an MPI, a matter of public importance debate, where we get to engage in robust debate around ideas and discussions—all of which is absolutely fair. When it becomes personal or unparliamentary, I will pull it up. Okay?
Mr Tehan: Deputy Speaker, just on that point: I think it would assist the House if the member for Hawke apologised for his actions. If he does that then I think everything will go back to normal. But I would ask him to apologise for his actions.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I understand. I'm sorry I can't rule on that because I sincerely did not hear, but there has been a request made of you, Member for Hawke.
Mr Rae: I did suggest the member for Fairfax was engaging in dog whistling. If it assists the House, I withdraw that.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. Can I just try and deal with this, please? Member for Hawke, it would assist the House if you were to withdraw your comments unreservedly.
Mr Rae: I'm happy to do so.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Minister?
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security) (15:28): I thank the member for McPherson for placing this matter on the public record. This is a really serious matter, and one that I think deserves a serious and sober discussion.
Mr Thompson interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, Minister. I have just pulled up disrespectful, unparliamentary behaviour and I would like you to withdraw that comment.
Mr Thompson: I withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am serious about this! Minister.
Ms O'NEIL: I think it would be appropriate for us to talk about this in a sober manner, and yelling slurs at each other across the chamber is not giving this its due consideration.
The decision to repatriate the women and children who are the subject of this debate was informed by individual assessments, which followed very, very detailed work by our national security agencies. I want to take a bit of time to outline to the House why this decision was important for our national security. As the House would know from media reports, the repatriation decision concerned four women and 13 children, the oldest of whom is a 13-year-old girl. The women in this instance were assessed in a detailed manner and have all received an assessment of being low risk.
I want to be absolutely clear to the House, because I think this important fact is getting somewhat lost in the debate about this matter: the women and children who have returned to Australia are Australian citizens. Now, there will be people in this chamber who see this matter from very different points of view. I am Australia's home affairs minister, and I have a very clear and simple prism through which I review these matters, and my concern is for the national security of Australians who are in Australia, full stop. That is the prism through which I see this matter.
We have a question here confronting our country about how we manage a situation where there are a number of women and children who are today living in camps in Syria. What the House and the Australian people need to absorb, in thinking through this issue, is that, as Australian citizens, these women and children have an enduring right to re-enter our country. There have been some attempts by this parliament to discuss taking citizenship away from people under certain circumstances. It is quite clear that that is not a legal avenue for the parliament to undertake. A home affairs minister from the conservative side of politics can't do it, just as a home affairs minister from the progressive side of politics can't do it.
We have to manage this issue, and the question for us is how we want the children at the heart of this matter to grow up and what the safest thing is for our country, for the type of childhood for these children to have. Is it in the nation's interests for a large group of Australian children, who will in all likelihood one day return to Australia, to spend their formative years living in a squalid refugee camp where they have very little access to health, where they do not get to go to school and where they are subjected every day to radical ideologies that tell them to hate their own country, or are they safer growing up here with Australian values? That is the decision we must make on a case-by-case basis, and we do it knowing that, at the moment, this country has control over whether and how these people return. We will not always have that control. There will come a point where we don't have the facility and ability to manage how these people return to our country, and they will return in an unplanned way, as happened under the previous government; I will get to some of the actions of the previous government in a moment, but let me focus on the matter at hand.
The national security decisions the government has made have been made on the advice of national security agencies, and the decision in these particular circumstances—and it will not be the case for every person who is Australian and in these camps—is that we manage this in a controlled way. That means the Australian government has been able to undertake individualised, very comprehensive security assessments of each individual that returns to this country. It means we can do it in a way where measures are implemented to protect the community. We can prepare for ongoing law enforcement monitoring, and, more importantly, we can connect these children with reintegration and rehabilitation so they can live a successful life in this country—which, surely, everyone in this parliament wants to see happen. If we don't do this, if we do as those opposite did—that is, stick our heads in the sand and pretend this problem is going to go away—then we are doing a disservice to our country. One of the things about being home affairs minister, which the member opposite should well know, is that sometimes we do difficult things in this job. There are no easy decisions here. There is no easy path forward. But this is the safest thing for our country, and that is why the government has made this decision.
I know those opposite are familiar with a lot of these arguments, because what is at the root of this debate is rank political hypocrisy that I would have thought would have been beyond even those opposite. I say that because we know the former government did exactly the same thing in 2019. The thing I fail to understand in this debate is why those opposite—some of whom are smart, free-thinking individuals—are getting up and criticising this decision when their government did exactly the same thing. Come on, let's have some standards for ourselves in this parliament; let's have some drive for consistency in this parliament. That decision of the former government to repatriate a group of Australians was made while the opposition leader was the home affairs minister. He had exactly the same choice I had as home affairs minister: would he leave these Australian children in Syria, to allow them to be continually subject to radical ideologies on a daily basis, or would he bring them to Australia? He made the decision to return those people to Australia.
I note that there has been some discussion about the consultation that has been undertaken here, and I want to turn to that matter. I have had a number of really good discussions with Western Sydney community leaders. They've been really good discussions because I think they show the level of complexity, seriousness and depth in the thoughts and beliefs that these communities take to these matters. As one community leader pointed out to me, no-one in Australia understands what is going on in Syria better than the people of Western Sydney. They are actually the experts on this matter. Not everyone is going to agree with the decision that the government is making, and there are people in the community who are asking very legitimate questions—ones that I am very happy to answer. But I do say that I have spoken to people in Western Sydney, including community leaders, who have deep regrets that this matter is being politicised. One said to me, 'This is about the only time that Peter Dutton has ever been to Fairfield.'
I met yesterday with the member for Fowler, who has been vocal in the debate. I hope she feels that was a good and constructive meeting, because I certainly felt that it was. She faithfully put the views of her constituents to me, which I gratefully appreciate. That is our role as members of parliament. I have spoken, I believe, to all of the MPs who have expressed an interest in this matter. If there are people have not had a discussion with me but seek one, please contact me. I'm very pleased to talk to you.
The Australian Federal Police have had a number of discussions with affected communities. Senior counterterrorism experts were in Western Sydney about a week ago, meeting with a large group of community leaders. We have more consultation planned. I think the calls for discussions in Western Sydney are very fair ones, and I am happy to comply with that, as I have said publicly.
I do want to ask those who follow me in this discussion to address the point of what consultation the former government undertook when it did a similar repatriation in 2019, because, as far as I am aware, none of this consultation occurred when those opposite did exactly the same thing. Again I invite those opposite, when they're on their feet, to give the parliament the courtesy of explaining why our government should be held to a completely different standard from the one your government was held to.
Our government has worked very hard across the Joint Counter Terrorism Teams, which have been a very important structure for our country in its successful fight in preventing terrorist attacks. We have incredibly smart people, with the deepest of community links, who help protect our community. I have confidence in those well-established frameworks that enable the Australian Federal Police to manage and respond to extremist threats in Australia, as they do every single day when they get out of bed every morning. I think it's important that we acknowledge the amazing efforts of those people and the repeated ways in which they have kept our community safe from radicalisation of all kinds.
I close by saying that the former Prime Minister the member for Cook was the greatest advocate for repatriating the group that came back. This what he said at the time in relation to the people who returned:
… they can't be held responsible for the crimes of their parents … they'll find their home in Australia and I'm sure they'll be embraced by Australians.
That was what the then Prime Minister said at the time, and I would just invite the opposition to consider why it is that they haven't continued in that tradition and instead have focused on the lazy politicking which has brought this before the parliament this afternoon.
Ms LE (Fowler) (15:38): Thank you, Minister. We did have a productive conversation yesterday about this issue. As many in the House are aware, I have spoken up about the resettlement of ISIS families among our community in South-West Sydney. In my electorate of Fowler, approximately 10 per cent of my population have escaped war-torn Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and, in particular, escaped the ISIS regime and states. As a former refugee who escaped communist Vietnam, I can empathise with the fears that many members of my community who escaped the atrocities under ISIS have been feeling since hearing the news through the media about the resettlement of a group of people among them. We cannot judge their genuine fears, and we cannot properly relate to what it was like to have lived through and under ISIS.
When Australians hear the word 'ISIS', they immediately connect it to the Lindt Cafe siege which occurred on 15 December 2014 and to the Melbourne stabbing in 2018, both of which shook the entire world. The threat of ISIS to our nation has slipped to the back of the minds of many Australians because our intelligence agencies and authorities have taken action to keep us safe. But, for members of my community, it still keeps them up at night, whether it be the nightmares or the severe trauma they experienced while fleeing their home countries to escape harm. We in this House cannot, and will not, understand the immense impact this decision by the government has had on my community, unless you physically leave your office and travel to south-west Sydney and to Fowler and the surrounding areas to see for yourself the concerns about placing ISIS families within walking distance of those who have experienced Islamic State's direct oppression.
As a member of parliament in the Australian House of Representatives, my job is to represent the views and interests of my constituents in Fowler. Our community is often a quite community, and we do not ask for much because we're so used to not being considered or consulted during the decision-making process on key issues that have a large impact on our community. So, when we do speak up, and when we do want to be heard, I would hope that this government does the right thing and listens. I understand the government has a mandate and wants to do as much as it can in as little time as possible, but I cannot stress enough the importance of dialogue and consultation with a community that is often forgotten by successive governments.
I live and breathe my community of Fowler and will be a constant voice in this House to advocate for them. I understand the minister will be visiting the seat of McMahon following my invitation to visit my Fowler community. I thank the minister for agreeing to my request to hear directly from the community groups who have been traumatised by the ISIS regime. I hope I'll be included in the community forum consultation this week, but even if I am not included I know that the community and I have been successful in getting you, the minister, to come and see south-western Sydney and listen to the concerns. I will continue to facilitate consultation. I will continue to offer my assistance and be the bridge that connects the House and any other major institutions to foster dialogue that will deliver positive outcomes to my diverse community of Fowler. I will hold this government accountable for the decisions that affect my constituents.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (15:41): I am sorry that the member for McPherson has brought this matter of public importance to the parliament in the way in which she did. I think it's really questionable, and I think she should be ashamed of herself.
Opposition members interjecting—
Dr FREELANDER: I have plenty more to come. If you look at the complete politicisation of the issue by the mayors who were quoted, I just think it's pathetic. I had written to the previous government about returning these children—these Australian citizens, these children—from the Al-Hawl camp. I'm not, of course, in any way justifying what their parents did.
I have a daughter, Amelia Freelander, who works for Medecins Sans Frontieres. She has visited all their clinics around the world. She's based in Europe. This is a little bit of what she told me about the al-Hawl detention camp in Syria: 'In 2021, 79 children died in the al-Hawl camp, the vast majority killed by violent acts. The majority of the rest died because of preventable illnesses. Boys as young as 11 were removed from their parents, never to be seen again. Girls in their early teenage years were taken from parents and married off without their consent. The camp is violent and unsafe, 24 hours a day. As I've already mentioned, the leading cause of death was violent crime in children. I've heard stories of children suffering severe burns, left in agony and refused medical care until they died. Most children have poor growth, poor nutrition, skin infections, parasitic infections, iron deficiency and B12 deficiency. They are severely psychologically traumatised; their learning is severely impaired. They are exposed to physical and psychological violence every day, seven days a week. Their parents are all similarly traumatised.' The women, of course, did the wrong thing, but many of them were barely children themselves. These are Australian citizens.
The way this issue has been politicised by those opposite is shameful. The way it's being politicised by the local mayors is shameful. I have not had one complaint from my community about this. Our local council fails to do its duty to its ratepayers, yet it can make these spurious claims without any evidence whatsoever. There's no evidence. I have not received one email, one letter or one visit to my office from any of my constituents, and I am embedded in my community.
This is really sad. These are children. I am a paediatrician. I cannot see those kids—any kids—be exposed to that, without trying to fix it. To see what's happened today really does raise a lot of questions in my mind about the motives of those opposite—not all, I recognise that. I know many would not have wanted this MPI to be presented, but what's happened has happened. We know that the previous government did nothing to support these kids. I've spoken to a number of security experts. They feel it is better that the children are brought to a place of safety, that they are brought up here and not left in an environment of continual trauma and continual indoctrination to become a possible greater danger to Australia in the future—those that don't die from this environment.
As has been mentioned previously, the previous government, in 2019, did repatriate some children. The reason they have brought this matter on today is unclear to me. I've put my point of view. I think all of those of good faith in this parliament would want Australian children brought up in safety.
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (15:46): I'd like to thank all the members who have contributed today, and I look forward to meeting with the Minister for Home Affairs. I do welcome that invite. There are concerns that I have, and there are some that have been raised with me by intelligence members who have worked in the region, as well as soldiers who have fought against terrorism, whether it be the Taliban or ISIS. These will be concerns that I will be able to raise directly with the minister in the coming days, because low risk doesn't mean no risk.
For me, this MPI goes to questions that I have, that the member for Fowler, the former deputy mayor, has and more to answers that we can then give to the people that are contacting me and other members of this place. I concur with the previous speaker in saying that no-one wants to see children in detention. No-one wants to see children, especially in a country like Syria, in a camp. Save the Children released a statement which said: 'An estimated 7,300 children live in camps under the guardianship of their ISIS-affiliated mothers who are diligently indoctrinating them with ISIS ideology and instilling in them the desire to avenge their fathers who were killed or taken prisoner in battles.' I agree with the previous speaker: we don't want to have young people, children, in camps and being indoctrinated.
Other countries, like the United States, France and Canada, have repatriated people, whether it's from Roj or the other detention centre there. France has repatriated 40 children and 15 women from the Kurdish-run camps in Syria, which were holding family members of suspected ISIS armed group fighters, according to the French foreign ministry. The 15 children were taken into child services, while the women were transferred to judicial authorities. We've also seen that Canada arrested two women as they returned home from the camp. They are accused of four crimes, including leaving Canada to participate in the activity of a terrorist group. So Canada has taken a different avenue to what Australia has taken. I do think that there are concerns that need to be addressed, because, if we've got security professionals and intelligence professionals with questions, that means the general public will also have them.
There have been full-female brigades fighting for ISIS. That's well documented. There was a Kansas woman, in the United States, who pled guilty to one count of conspiring to provide support to ISIS. She told the judge that she didn't know that some of the 100 women she led and trained to use weapons and explosives were children, some as young as 10. During her decade of working with ISIS and others to wage violent war, she travelled from Libya to Egypt and eventually to Syria, and she had plans for a terrorist attack in the US. She trained other women in ISIS on how to use AK-47s, grenades and suicide belts, according to her plea agreement. No-one wants to see that here, and I have extreme faith in our intelligence agencies and in the government to really dive in to ensure that it doesn't. But what follows that? Is there any surveillance? Are there any report lines? Are there any checks and balances put in place to ensure that there isn't someone like this person from Kansas who trained others or that the people who are here haven't done something similar?
These are questions that I think need to be answered, and I'd like to work collaboratively with the minister on that. If I can use my network and the people that have been contacting me to dissuade any of the thoughts or suggestions that these people could have been in the same brigades, then I think it's a good thing, because we don't want to see fear and angst in the community.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (15:51): We have a special responsibility in this place to act in the national interest. I think we all know that. I know the members on the other side and the crossbench do. Many people don't see the cooperation that happens in the committees and the other important matters in this place, where members and senators from both sides work together in the national interest.
I've seen that spirit of bipartisanship, and, in that context, I find this MPI simply unbelievable. It's actually galling. You would think the opposition would have learnt their lesson when it comes to our national security and foreign policy. You would think they'd resist the temptation to try and score domestic politic points, after the damage that was done to our international relationships by the former government. But they haven't learnt. They are so desperate to cover up the truth and to write a revisionist history when it comes to their pathetic legacy in government, because, when it comes to this issue—like many other issues—they just want to kick it into the long grass and then politicise it. They refused to make the tough calls, the ones Australians expect their government to make.
This government has made this decision, based on the best advice of our national security agencies, based on four sound reasons: national security for Australians, to keep us safe; support for our partners who are fighting on the front line against Islamic State; and citizenship. What does it mean to be an Australian? What are our obligations to our Australian citizens, particularly children? And the fourth reason was our humanitarian obligations to those Australian citizens.
Firstly, on national security, I want to ask those opposite, given you decided not to repatriate these children, what was your plan? Was it to leave them there languishing, exposed to violent ideology, and to have them grow up alongside people who would seek to do us harm and have them become those people? Was it to have them become adults, Australian citizens, and have them return to Australia or elsewhere with that violent ideology after being radicalised? What was your plan?
For all of the criticism that you want to throw at this government, this government actually acted. We chose not to take the risk to national security in the longer term, knowing it would have increased down the line. Instead, we chose to let these children grow up in Australia, inculcated by Australian values, not radicalised in a squalid camp with a violent ideology. The UN counterterrorism chief said that inaction on repatriation threatened 'to bring about those very outcomes we intend to prevent,' including 'the radicalisation and recruitment of a new generation of terrorists and a strengthening of terrorist groups in the region and around world'. He went on to brief the UN Security Council in August this year and said:
Those individuals, many of whom are children who did not choose to be there … are at very real risk of radicalisation and recruitment.
Secondly, we have made a decision to support partners on the frontline fight against Islamic State. Approximately 36 other countries have repatriated many of their citizens from those camps in north-east Syria. This is a decision made by this government in line with our allies and partners around the world. Thirdly, these children are Australian citizens. That means something. It should mean something to each and every one of us in this House. There is a value in it. Fourthly, we owe humanitarian obligations to our citizens, especially children. The repatriation of the women and children from the camps shows that this government cares for its children, for its citizens and for its responsibility to act in the best interests of those children.
The former government left Australian women and children to languish in these camps in conditions most of us could not imagine, horrible conditions, with children under constant risk of being injured, killed or trafficked. I would suggest those opposite, if they weren't trying to score cheap, domestic political points, would actually support this decision, because guess what? The member for Cook when he was PM actually did so when the former government repatriated children in 2019. They received the same advice that the now opposition leader, when he was Minister for Home Affairs, got. He was briefed by the same national security agencies that supported this decision.
So if you don't have a plan, leave it to those who will act in the national interest, who won't kick the issues into the long grass. If you are interested in working in the national interest in a spirit of true bipartisanship, as I believe many are in this place, give up on the sham of trying to rewrite history. Accept your failings in government, but don't criticise this one for taking action where you refused to.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (15:56): There is a dangerous naivety that pervades a lot of the Labor Party in relation to national security. This dangerous naivety manifested in recent weeks and months in this matter. I will give an example. The member for Sydney exclaimed loudly that, in relation to ISIS brides returning to Australia, these are women and children, as if somehow women couldn't be subject to extremist ideology the same as men could be, as if this wasn't a deeply complex matter. As the Minister for Home Affairs said, the radicalisation of Westerners who fled to the Middle East to support the ISIS regime knowingly supported the deaths of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people—our citizens. I thank the shadow minister for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Rather than what the government here is saying about this being a political point, we fundamentally do not agree with this because the government has not answered questions.
Ms O'Neil: But you did it. You did it yourself, Alex, three years ago. Your mate Scott Morrison did it.
Mr HAWKE: I will get to that in a moment, Minister. Trust me, I will get to that in a moment. What we don't agree with is of course what this government has done in bringing back the brides of ISIS fighters, women who did voluntarily leave our country to support an ISIS regime that we know threw homosexual people off buildings, that we know subjected Yazidi women to repeated months of slavery followed by death, and pushed young boys into mass graves. So when we hear members of the talking about the conditions of people and camps because of the ISIS regime we must not forget the Westerners left their country, their free country that respects human rights, to support this regime that created this problem in the first place.
The minister has not said to the Australian people what charges will be laid against people who left our country to support this regime. What advice has she received on the culpability of the adult women who left Australia to support their husbands in these practices? This is not just about the children, Minister, as you well know. If we're talking about children and what governments supported children, let's talk about 2019 because it has been raised several times. But it is an inconvenient truth what the minister said to the House, very inconvenient.
In 2019 the Morrison government repatriated eight orphans from the Middle East.
Ms O'Neil: One of them was an orphan; you got your facts wrong.
Mr HAWKE: No, one of them was not an adult, Minister. Again, you are wrong and you are misleading the House. One of them was a pregnant teenager; that was the other one. The rest of them were orphans. You have repatriated for the first time, and this is the difference that you haven't been upfront about, people who left Australia to support the ISIS regime. That is a quantitative difference. It is a serious national security matter. It needs to be addressed in front of the communities of Western Sydney and Melbourne, and you have not done so. For the first time today, you've come to this House to give some comprehensive answers.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): You might wish to address your remarks through the chair.
Mr HAWKE: I agree, Deputy Speaker, thank you. I do support the fact that you've come into this House and given some answers for the first time, but you've been forced to do so.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, 'you' is me, okay?
Mr HAWKE: I'm actually not saying 'you', as in—
The DEPUTY S PEAKER: No, I am just pulling you up.
Mr HAWKE: I understand your ruling, Madam Chair. I'm not saying 'you'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: When you say 'you', you are talking to me.
Mr HAWKE: I apologise.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you want to refer to the minister, use her correct title.
Mr HAWKE: The minister—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Otherwise, it's through me.
Mr HAWKE: I shall. Let me complete and I will.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me! Am I chairing this parliament?
Mr HAWKE: Do you want me to answer or—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you serious? I asked you a serious question. You were deliberately ignoring, at the very least, my comments. I'm asking you to direct your comments through me as the chair. When you refer to the minister, use her title. When you say the word 'you', it is as though you are talking to me. That's my ruling, and you have chosen to wilfully ignore it. I'm asking you not to, or I will ask you to leave the chamber.
Mr HAWKE: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'll do whatever you say. The minister, of course, has been forced into this House and, for the first time, has had to answer. I understand why members opposite are touchy about this issue, but it is not the opposition that is raising this issue. It is mayors in Western Sydney, it is members of the Australian Assyrian community, it is members of the Australian Yazidi community, and it is the tens of thousands of refugees that we, the Morrison government, took in from the Middle East as the victims of ISIS regime. When will the minister come to this House and tell Australians what charges will be laid against people who left this country to support ISIS? When will the minister come in and give the actual details about what arrangements will be in place to protect Australians and our children and our safety? (Time expired)
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:01): When the whip on our side showed me what today's matter of public importance was, I asked if I could speak on it. It may sound a bit weird to have the federal member for Bendigo ask to speak on a matter like this, but I wanted to for a couple of reasons. First, I wanted to say a few things about the women who are being brought home and make a few comments on the children, as others on my side have. But I also wanted to make a few comments about the tone in which this has been brought before the parliament.
Many may not know this, but I was born in Western Sydney, in Wentworthville. I'm a Western Sydney girl. My mum, a ten-pound Pom, grew up in Mount Druitt. It is the story of so many Australians. Western Sydney is such a dynamic, awesome part of our country that so many people have a connection to. That's what I think disappoints me the most about this matter of public importance—suggesting that people living in Western Sydney today are different than the rest of the country. These are people who for generations have lived in Western Sydney, people who recently arrived in Australia and now live in Western Sydney, and people like me, who started in Western Sydney and became the federal member for Bendigo.
Shame on the government for trying to single out such an awesome part of the country—sorry, shame on the opposition for trying to single out such an awesome part of the country and say that they are different. They have the same concerns, worries, hopes and aspirations as the rest of us. I think about what my mum would say now if she knew about this matter of public importance, and I think about the stories that she continues to tell me today about the neighbourhood in which she grew up, at Mount Druitt, a proud part of our country.
The children being brought here are innocents who have been growing up in absolute squalor. Our responsibility as a parliament, and as Australians, is to ensure that all Australian children have the same opportunity and deserve the same go. It is our responsibility to bring them here, just like the previous government did. I remember, when they repatriated the first women and children from the Syrian campus, thinking, 'Finally, the government'—the government back then—'have found their heart and realised that they have a responsibility to ensure that these Australian children can grow up.' These were young children who had no opportunity in the camps where they were. The government were taking some responsibility for Australian children. I can remember one family and the hope on the grandfather's and great-grandfather's faces, and the joy and the tears, when their family had been returned, knowing they now had a chance. I remember the way they embraced the granddaughter, who was pregnant and a child bride.
These women—we don't know their full story. We don't know how they ended up in Syria. What we do know about is the reports that have come through from other parts of the world where they've repatriated women. Many of these women, these ISIS brides, were coerced, were tricked. They may have left here not fully knowing what was happening over there. They were married at 15, 16, 17, 18. It is a life that nobody would want to see a daughter or granddaughter go through. We don't know their trauma or their experiences. When they come to Australia, home, they may start to receive help. We do not have matters of public importance debates on people who have experienced torture, people who've experienced trauma, people who have may made a wrong decision, people who may not have known the decision they were making, people who are now wanting to restart their lives. These women deserve our support, compassion and understanding. These women deserve a moment for healing and a chance to rebuild their lives in a country that they are part of.
I really respect and admire the decision that the Minister for Home Affairs has made and the spirit in which she has made it, taking on board the recommendations of our national security agencies. I do acknowledge the reason why it's taken a bit of time to get here is that they did want to make sure these women posed a low risk, and that is what has now been found.
To the women, to the 13 children they bring with them, to their families: I'm so relieved that you will now be able to come together and start to heal from your experience. I cannot imagine what you've lived through, but I am proud that you will be coming home to a country that truly wants to see you find a place here, where you can be raised, live free and have hopes for the future, like all of our children.
Ms WARE (Hughes) (16:06): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance about the government's rushed decision to settle families of ISIS soldiers in Western Sydney without proper consultation with that community. At the outset, I note there have been some comments raised from those on the other side today about whether or not this was an appropriate matter of public importance to be brought by our side. I think many of the points that will be in my speech are not so much around whether or not it is appropriate to bring back Australian children into this country. It is about the process that has been followed. It's about the seeming lack of communication from the office of the Minister for Home Affairs and from the government department that she oversees on this issue. And the fact today that we have at last had some explanation as to the reasons why this decision was made is in fact proof that this was a matter of public importance that was appropriate to have been brought today by our side.
I also say at the outset, particularly as a mother: I do not want to see Australian children held in these camps in the circumstances that we have heard described. That is why my comments today are more around the process from the Minister for Home Affairs, the lack of consultation with the people, with the communities to which these Australians are being repatriated, and the process that has so far been followed, or perhaps not followed. These are around issues of national security. It is a deeply complex issue and, in view of that, it required probably more consultation and more communication because of the nature of the complexity of the problem.
In that regard, I acknowledge the work done by my local Liverpool City Council mayor, Ned Mannoun; Campbelltown City Council mayor, George Greiss; and Fairfield City Council mayor, Frank Carbone, and I thank them for that work. Collectively, these local government areas represent over 560,000 residents, including constituents in my electorate of Hughes in the suburbs of Voyager Point, Holsworthy, Wattle Grove, Hammondville and Moorebank. On 9 November those councillors wrote to the Prime Minister to request a meeting to discuss the resettlement of the relatives of Islamic State fighters. In the letter they were quite clear about what they were seeking. They said:
These families have lived alongside Islamic State fighters for over 7 years after turning their backs on Australia, and at no stage have they spoken out against the actions of ISIS.
Your Government has listened to the repatriated families views but have not taken time to consult with the communities affected by this decision.
So this was not about traumatising already traumatised children. This was three councillors activating and advocating for their community, requesting a meeting and requesting an explanation of a complex government policy. The Prime Minister has, rightly, attended in person recently and met with victims of floods in New South Wales. Therefore, I ask why it is that both the Prime Minister and the home affairs minister are above face-to-face meetings with concerned residents of Western Sydney on this very important issue. The people of south-western Sydney deserve respect. They deserve to be listened to. They've asked legitimate questions and are simply asking that those legitimate questions be answered by the minister responsible.
Regarding repatriations to Western Sydney, Australians are entitled to understand two main things. What, if any, safeguards has the Minister for Home Affairs put in place to ensure that none of these Australian women or children have been exploited by ISIS and that none of these children have been placed in situations of irreparable harm? The job of the Prime Minister and the home affairs minister is to keep Australia safe, to keep Australians safe and to reduce risk to our national security. I call upon the minister to meet with this community.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:11): I acknowledge all those who have entered into this matter of public importance debate this afternoon in good faith, and I think a fair few have; some haven't, or perhaps have taken their responsibility in regard to these issues in the former government to heart. But we should have respectful debate in this place. So it has been interesting to see the different aspects of this discussion that were pulled out by different members of the opposition—uncomfortable I think, with the bringing of the matter before this House, and it is questionable. However, in having a respectful discussion, with the focus on process and proper consultation—valid points—the opposition did kick this cohort of people down the road. There's no doubt about that. When we talk about a cohort, it's women and children. It's Australian women and children, kicked down the road, which is a road to ruin.
Anyone who understands what camps full of displaced people in conflict areas are like—maybe the shadow minister for defence has visited some of these; I know a lot on our side have visited such camps—knows that they are incredibly dangerous places, they are incredibly unhealthy places and often they're places where people don't want to be—and they don't want to be there for good reason. To have Australian children growing up in inhumane camps with poor health, as the member for Macarthur pointed out, and poor access to any sort of education—which of course is the way we battle radical ideologies, through good education—is a very negative environment. For these children, as Australian children, to be returned is I think an admirable thing but also a smart thing, given that the security agencies have recommended that we do that. To those opposite who are calling that advice into question, I would say that the security agencies know a lot more than you do about this issue, so I'm happy to provide some points for you to reflect on.
I understand the political motives behind what you're trying to do with this issue, and as unadmirable as they are I think it's an important issue. Australian citizens are facing difficult situations. We are not going to know the full story behind why any decision was made. We never do when it comes to matters of the heart, matters of families, matters of cultures and traditions, but what we do know is that we're much better off accepting, not rejecting, people into our communities because that leads to safer communities.
Previous speakers have pointed out the hypocrisy of the opposition in criticising the bringing of these children home, and I won't go over it again and again. But it is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition was specifically briefed on this operation by our national security agencies. I will just say to him that he should know better, having held positions in government in the past, than to act in a dishonest way.
The situations in these camps, as I've mentioned, are horrific. The amount of rape, the amount of assaults that go on, as well as sickness—basically these children are at constant risk of being injured or killed. A lot of kids die in these types of camps. They can also be trafficked. Let's just think about what we're really doing here.
I think decisions have been made in the interests of national security. A lot of people in this House and a lot of those in the opposition like to look to others around the world. We're acting correctly as a global citizen.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): This discussion is now concluded.
BILLS
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment.
Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Ind (Pocock) (1) [Sheet 1734]
Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 7), after item 71, insert:
71A At the end of Division 2 of Part 3
Add:
26A Annual report regarding arrangements and grants
(1) The Emergency Management Minister must cause to be prepared, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, an annual report on the exercise of the Minister's functions and powers under section 20 (which deals with arrangements and grants) during the year.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include the following in relation to each process by which a decision was made during the year to make one or more section 20 arrangements or section 20 grants:
(a) details of how the process was conducted;
(b) for each arrangement or grant that was made as a result of the process:
(i) the name of the person (other than an individual) or body with or to which the arrangement or grant was made; and
(ii) details of the arrangement or grant made;
(c) for each person or body that, as part of the process, made an unsuccessful application (however described) for an arrangement or grant:
(i) the name of the person (other than an individual) or body; and
(ii) details of the arrangement or grant applied for.
(3) However, information described in paragraph (2)(c) can only be included in the report if the person or body that made the unsuccessful application provides their agreement in writing.
(4) The Emergency Management Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the financial year to which the report relates.
26B Review of arrangements a nd grants
(1) The Emergency Management Minister must cause an independent review of the following matters to be undertaken before the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this section:
(a) the section 20 arrangements and section 20 grants that have been made, including their purposes and the payments made in relation to them;
(b) the appropriateness of the processes by which decisions to make or not to make such arrangements and grants have been made, taking into account the information reported under section 26A;
(c) the implementation of any guidelines for making decisions of that kind, and compliance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and instruments made under that Act in relation to those decisions;
(d) whether any additional measures should be taken (including amendments of this Act) to improve transparency relating to decisions of that kind, and if so what those measures should be.
(2) The person or persons who conduct the review must:
(a) give the Emergency Management Minister a written report of the review; and
(b) do so before the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this section.
(3) The Emergency Management Minister must cause a copy of:
(a) the terms of reference for the review; and
(b) the report of the review;
to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
(4) The Emergency Management Minister must also cause a copy of the terms of reference and report to be published on the NEMA's website as soon as practicable after the report is given to the Minister.
(2) Opp (1) [Sheet 1726]
Schedule 1, item 105, page 22 (after line 15), at the end of section 34A, add:
(6) The advice given by the Future Fund Board in accordance with subparagraph (1)(b)(i) must be tabled in each House of the Parliament with the relevant determination.
Note: As the determination is a legislative instrument, it is also tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security) (16:18): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022
National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to set a funding floor for the NACC which is equal to the amount allocated to the NACC in the 2022-23 Budget; and ensures that the annual budget for the NACC includes a minimum indexation which is not less than the annual CPI".
to which the following amendment was moved:
That the following words be added after CPI:
"; and:
(1) notes that the bill essentially replicates protections from the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 which, given the known deficiencies of the Act, is grossly inadequate; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) review whistleblower protections in the bill to ensure that protections for whistleblowers are strong, comprehensive and fit for purpose;
(b) urgently reform the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and the Corporations Act 2001; and
(c) establish an empowered and well-resourced Whistleblower Protection Commissioner to facilitate the effective implementation and enforcement of whistleblower protections".
Mr GORMAN (Perth—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:19): This government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability. In 2007 it was a Labor government that introduced the standards of ministerial ethics, introduced reforms to ensure that cabinet documents were made available to the public in a more timely fashion and introduced long overdue reforms to freedom of information, led by then senator Faulkner.
In 2022, it is again a Labor government which has the responsibility to introduce a higher standard of the code of conduct for ministers and their staff. Now we take the next step in introducing a National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is meaningful action to drive out corruption. It's something that was promised by the coalition but delivered today by Labor. We know that corruption can be devastating for our society. It enables serious and organised crime, it harms individuals, it harms our society, it harms our economy, it damages our national security, it destroys the vital trust that we need in institutions and it eats away at that fundamental Australian value of democracy.
During my time in this place I have always found it very strange that when I go and sit alongside local councillors at a citizenship ceremony in the City of Bayswater, those councillors are under a more stringent anticorruption regime than I am as a federal member of parliament. When it comes to finally getting to that point where we harmonise across the states and territories so that all levels of government are under an anticorruption regime—that is a good thing and it is well and truly overdue.
We aren't just putting the legislation into this parliament. We have already committed the funds necessary to make sure that this is a powerful watchdog with teeth. If you look at the funding allocated—$262.6 million to fund the National Anti-Corruption Commission—that is actually an investment in making sure that taxpayers get value for money out of all of the decisions that are made by government. To make sure that this is a strong, effective and independent body there is annual funding of $67.4 million from 2026-27. This will secure the National Anti-Corruption Commission as an independent statutory agency; one with a broad jurisdiction to investigate allegations of serious or systematic corruption across the Commonwealth public sector.
I'll remark again that I am so disappointed that some people have chosen to use this debate, of all debates, to attack the public servants who serve us so well. They weren't just junior members of the opposition backbench; they were people who'd previously served as Acting Prime Minister. They chose to use this debate to attack the public servants, the vast majority of whom work incredibly hard doing so much for our country, trying to do the right thing in developing and delivering policy that improves the lives of all Australians. This should be a debate where we actually praise our public sector, where we say thank you for giving us the strong institutions which we rely upon, and I, again, say thank you to our public servants for all of the work that they do.
When we talk about scope, again, this will cover the entire public sector of the Commonwealth. It will include federal ministers, federal parliamentarians, staff, statutory officeholders, government entities staff, companies and contractors. It will cover any person who adversely affects or could adversely affect the honest or impartial exercise of a public official's functions. In that sense it enables government. It enables the public to have confidence in the decisions that are made. It enables those many tens of thousands of public servants—who do the right thing by the taxpayers of Australia every day—to have confidence in doing their job professionally and well and in accordance with the law.
Importantly for the construction of this bill—and it is a hefty piece that's on the table just there—it was constructed in consultation with a range of experts. It was also done in consultation with the parliament itself. Again, I want to thank the committee members who were involved in reviewing this legislation and who have recommended improvements to this bill, drawing upon their experiences and, indeed, the long march that many people have been on in looking for this to finally get to the floor of the parliament in 2022. As the Prime Minister has highlighted today, it is so important that it is the decision of the commission as to where they choose to investigate. The commission and commissioners will have the discretion to commence investigations on their own initiative, as well as on the basis of referrals from anyone. Any Australian citizen will be able to make a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, making sure that this truly empowers the citizens of Australia. It will have the power to investigate conduct that occurred before its establishment. It will hold public hearings where there is a public interest and in exceptional circumstances—again, not a decision for anyone here; a decision for the independent commissioners—and will have the funding, as I mentioned before, to ensure it has the staff capabilities and technical capabilities to do its job properly.
What we all want is for this commission to be able to consider those referrals, initiate timely investigations and undertake corruption prevention and education activities. I think it's really important, and the legislation and the explanatory memorandum outline this, that the National Anti-Corruption Commission will not simply be an investigator; it will also be an educator, committed to that big project of raising the standard of our public administration, because promoting anticorruption best practice is as important as stamping out corruption where it is happening—we know that prevention is better than cure—and providing valuable information and insight into corruption so that decision-makers and policymakers can make better informed decisions about how we design policy to prevent or in some cases identify corrupt practices.
What's also important is that we note, as I outlined earlier, corruption doesn't just have a cost in dollars; it has a cost in what it does to our society, and in some places corruption enables serious organised crime. That's why the preventative functions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will allow it to investigate the existing vulnerabilities in the public sector, the sorts that criminals may seek to exploit or may indeed be exploiting today. The National Anti-Corruption Commission will be able to consider measures that can be implemented further to stop such corruption from occurring, and in doing so it will draw upon a growing set of expertise that exists across Australian academia, the public sector and the private sector, where we are becoming regarded as a leader in anticorruption work, but starting to do that coordination piece across the agencies of states and territories. The existing agencies cover some parts of our public sector, and now this great coordinating agency will be able to lead at a national level.
Thinking about how this fits into broader efforts from the government to restore integrity to our national government, I've already mentioned the strongest code of conduct for ministers that has ever been in place for any Australian government in history, but we're also working across the parliament to implement the Set the Standard report to ensure Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful. We're looking at ways to increase the transparency and integrity of political donations in Australian federal election processes, and we've already taken steps to ensure that processes for appointments to key independent institutions are transparent and merit based. For too long, Australians were without a government they could be proud of. They had a government they felt they could not trust. This is about restoring that trust not in a particular government but in the institution of government.
I do note an integrity commission will not stop every bad decision, and it will not guarantee that every government decision will be a good one. No Western Australian will ever forget the decision Prime Minister Morrison made in the middle of the COVID crisis to support Clive Palmer against the people of Western Australia in the High Court—not corrupt, but a terrible decision, which was made through the coalition cabinet. A number of people who helped make that decision and backed that decision now sit on the frontbench of the opposition. The entire weight of the Commonwealth's legal resources was thrown behind Clive Palmer in that case. Over three days they called multiple witnesses and vigorously cross-examined Western Australia's public health experts, and when they finally agreed to give up, what did they do? They signed a cheque for a million dollars to cover Clive Palmer's legal fees—like I said, not something that would necessarily instantly draw itself to being examined by this body but the sort of thing that shows you that no anticorruption body can save a bad government from bad decisions.
If I think about some of those bad decisions, I go into a range of areas. I think about the broken promises to not cut the ABC, the broken promises when it came to putting in penalties for wage theft and the broken promises to act on climate change. That ties it back to what we are doing today because, in fact, this legislation delivers on something that the Australian people were promised in 2018. It was a promise of the then Attorney-General, the member for Pearce, that this legislation would be put in, should they be re-elected in 2019, and then nothing happened for three years. Again, in restoring the faith that people should have in government, it is important that we get this legislation done. It is important that we get this legislation done now so that we can allow that commission to start doing the work that is so long overdue in restoring integrity and restoring trust in government.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (16:30): I rise to speak in support of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, and I move:
That the following words be added after "protections":
"; and:
(3) notes that the exceptional circumstances requirement for hearings to be heard in public is likely to lead to very few investigation hearings being held in public and is not in line with the public expectation of increased accountability and transparency".
This bill goes a long way to addressing one of the most important issues influencing the shape of Australian politics today. The crossbench has long campaigned for prioritising a federal integrity commission, and I'm glad that the government has made good on its election promise to create such a body and to ensure both that it has teeth and it has the power to investigate retrospectively.
We need this bill because at present, until the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the closest thing we have to an integrity commission is the Auditor-General's office—a body in the past few years which has questioned a long list of scandals including: car park rorts, the sports rorts scandal and the Leppington land sale of Sydney's second airport to name just a few. As a result of these scandals, public trust in Australian politicians and in our democracy is declining at a rapid rate. We need a National Anti-Corruption Commission to uphold standards of integrity, and demonstrate that our democracy is robust and people can trust us.
Importantly, this bill has the potential to create a serious National Anti-Corruption Commission. It will have broad jurisdiction to investigate public sector corruption. It will provide for prevention and education to bolster anticorruption measures. It will have retrospective powers. It will have the ability to hold public hearings, although limited—and, as such, the reason for my amendment. It will have the ability to initiate its own investigations and take referrals from the public and the parliament. It will be overseen by a parliamentary joint committee and an inspector. It's a good bill, but it can be improved.
The crossbench are again leading the charge to make this bill better. In several respects I believe it does not go far enough, and I will speak to these areas where I believe it is deficient. There are several issues. The first, and I believe the most critical, are the limitations on public hearings, the definition of 'corrupt conduct' and the identity of the chair of the parliamentary joint committee. I'm also concerned about the independent funding for the commission and the absence of a whistleblower protection commissioner. These two issues are far-reaching and important, and will probably need to be the subject of separate legislation, but I want to flag that without them I consider the proposed commission comes up far too short. I'm also concerned about referrals from parliament, as well as the need to set parameters for the timing of reports to ensure that the commission hands down reports in a timely way, for legal professional privilege and for opportunities to respond to findings of corruption.
Opinion polling and public commentary as well as electoral trends all indicate that the public feels strongly that legislation of this kind is needed. The government, in its explanatory memorandum, states:
The NACC Bill would strengthen corruption prevention across the Commonwealth government, by enabling the NACC to undertake public inquiries and provide advice on corruption risks and vulnerabilities and strategies to address them.
These aims are laudable, but I think the government's bill fails to achieve this in three major respects.
Firstly, I consider that corruption prevention is seriously constrained by forcing the commissioner to limit public hearings to where he or she decides there are exceptional circumstances. There are three main objections to the inclusion of this threshold. The first is that the word 'exceptional' is an uncertain requirement, which would encourage challenge in a court of law. I agree with the Centre for Public Integrity that this could be exploited by well-resourced litigants to both delay commission investigations and obtain knowledge of the material that the commission has against them. This is hardly likely to 'strengthen corruption prevention', to use the government's own words. The second objection is that no Australian jurisdiction other than Victoria has adopted this approach. In its submission to the parliamentary inquiry, the Victorian IBAC has stated that it believes this is an unnecessary hurdle which has hampered it in carrying out its role. The IBAC submission pointed out:
… the Victorian Court of Appeal has determined that, for circumstances to be 'exceptional' under s 117 of the IBAC Act, they must be 'clearly unusual and distinctly out of the ordinary' compared with the allegations of corrupt conduct ordinarily investigated by IBAC. This has had the effect of placing an artificial limit on IBAC's ability to conduct examinations in public.
Thirdly, if the concern is that public hearings may unfairly damage a person's reputation, I would point to the proposed section 73 of the bill, which already lists, amongst the matters which the commissioner may take into account in deciding whether to hold a hearing in public, 'any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would be likely to be caused if the hearing, or the part of the hearing, were to be held in public'. Having taken this into account, I strongly agree with the Centre for Public Integrity that having to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances on top of that, on top of the public interest, is an unnecessary and inappropriate further hurdle.
Secondly, I have serious concerns about the definition of corrupt conduct. I support the amendment proposed by the member for Indi:
Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration and which could involve any of the following matters …
And the proposed amendment goes on to list a number of matters. I strongly agree with the Centre for Public Integrity that, without this additional wording, the legislation would be inferior to that of all other Australian jurisdictions other than WA and Tasmania. I note that the government has said that other conduct that could adversely affect public administration, such as external fraud, will continue to be dealt with by existing integrity agencies such as the Australian Federal Police. However, I agree, again, with the Centre for Public Integrity that focus on individual criminal acts and actors may cause an anticorruption commission to miss the forest for the trees and may therefore militate against 'strengthening corruption prevention', the very lofty goal of the government's own explanatory memorandum.
Thirdly, I'm very concerned at the fact that the chair of the parliamentary joint committee must be a member of the government. Since the chair will have a casting vote, I'm concerned about the effect on the independence of the committee. I believe that the chair must not be a member of a political party that forms part of the government. I support the amendment proposed by the member for Indi to that effect. This is an opportunity for the government to be bigger than politics. With all the rhetoric and all the words that have been said in the public domain about wanting to improve trust in government and improve trust in politics, this is an opportunity to truly be multipartisan and establish a joint committee that will ensure independence. It is so incredibly important for the Australian public to have trust that this is done to the utmost degree, and here is an opportunity for the government to step up to the plate.
Next, I turn to the two issues which I mentioned earlier are also of great importance but which have wider-ranging implications and which justify consideration for separate legislation. The first is the need for independent funding of the commission. While I note that the parliamentary joint committee must report to both houses of the parliament on whether the commission has sufficient funding and whether its budget should be increased, I agree with the Centre for Public Integrity and other members of this place that this gives no long-term security for the commission. The centre has proposed a model which would set up an independent funding tribunal, which would oversee the annual budgets of key accountability institutions, including the commission. I commend the work done by the centre in this respect and consider that this proposal should be the subject of separate and more detailed consideration by the parliament.
Secondly, there is the need for a whistleblower protection commissioner. I welcome the fact that part 5 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill allows any person to refer a corruption issue to the commissioner and provides that under certain circumstances heads of Commonwealth agencies, including intelligence agencies, must refer certain corruption issues to the commissioner. However, I note that the anticorruption bills introduced by the crossbench in 2018 and 2020, including by the member for Indi, would have established a whistleblower protection commissioner. Such a body is absent from the government's draft legislation. I refer to the joint statement of support for the commission signed by me and 14 other crossbenchers and to its call that the bill should include provision for a whistleblower protection commissioner. Given that the bill fails to do so, I believe that this should be further addressed and discussed by the parliament in separate legislation to be considered and proposed.
Finally, there are other issues on which amendments will be proposed at the consideration in detail stage. In summary, the first of these is that the commission should be obliged to deal with corruption issues referred to it by the houses of parliament. This would be an exception to the discretion which the commission would otherwise have as to whether or not to deal with corruption issues referred to it. This is a place where we represent our communities and the Australian people and, if it were determined in this place that a matter needed to be investigated by the commission, I believe it is appropriate that that should occur.
Secondly, I believe that the commissioner should have discretion in deciding whether or not to hear in private evidence that would disclose legal advice or a communication protected by legal professional privilege. I agree with the Centre for Public Integrity that to make this mandatory would be to leave it open to well-funded litigants to exploit this right, with the effect of delaying or disrupting the commission's work.
Thirdly, I believe that there must be a time limit on the opportunity for a person or entity that is the subject of a critical finding by the commission to respond to that finding. Currently it's stated to be 'a reasonable time', but I think that this should be changed to 'three months or such longer period as is determined by the commissioner'. We should not have a situation where persons investigated indefinitely delay the conclusion of an investigation by not providing that response.
Lastly, I believe the provisions relating to the requirement for and timing of tabling of investigation reports in parliament where public hearings have been held in respect of an investigation should be extended to all investigations, whether hearings have been held in public or in private. The Australian public want to know if investigations are being held, and they want to know the outcome of those investigations. At the moment, there is much too much provision in this bill that keeps it behind closed doors and provides a standard for politicians that is wholly different to what the rest of the public gets.
There should also be a time limit of 12 months for the tabling of a report after the last hearing is held, because as we see in numerous jurisdictions—I look at New South Wales, where it's been over 12 months without any report in relation to the investigation into the previous Premier of New South Wales—delay in reporting leaves a cloud of uncertainty over a person for an unreasonable amount of time. I think it is incredibly important that the legislation provide direction and a time limit of 12 months for the tabling of such reports.
Ultimately, I strongly support the establishment of a National Anti-Corruption Commission, along with many members of this crossbench and of this parliament. We know the public have had enough and they want to see government, politicians and third parties held to account. I strongly urge the government to consider the 2022 election outcomes and the strong community support for returning integrity, accountability and transparency to government. This can be done by accepting amendments proposed to better this legislation. Otherwise, it's disappointing. It's a good bill but not a great bill, and it is one that may well fail to deliver what Australians so clearly want: a return to transparency, accountability and integrity in Australian politics.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Le: I second the amendment.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:45): I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in respect of this legislation, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the associated bill. Confidence in public administration, including in government, the parliamentary system, politics and politicians, is at an all-time low in Australia. We often speak with pride about Australian democracy, in particular of having a democratic political process. However, even democracy can be corrupted, as we have seen within Australia on too many occasions and as has been exposed by state and territory integrity commissions and other government initiated inquiries in the past.
Whilst corruption is often seen more so as a problem in overseas countries, the reality is that it can occur anywhere and it can take many forms. To quote Bono, someone who is well known as a musician:
The worst disease in the world today is corruption. And there is a cure: transparency.
Transparency is best served when there is nothing to hide, and that is more likely to occur when those holding positions of authority and power are themselves open to oversight and scrutiny.
That is exactly what this legislation does, and it is long overdue. Importantly, it should restore public trust in government and government departments. This legislation has been extensively and intensively scrutinised, perhaps more so than most other legislation that comes before this parliament. It also draws on years of experience of existing state and territory anticorruption commissions. Indeed, in my time in this parliament, I don't recall any legislation that has been scrutinised as much as this bill. The reality is discussion about this legislation has now been ongoing for five or six years, in the lead-up to this last election and before that, when there was discussion about the previous government's legislation.
Interestingly, in looking at this legislation and at the comparisons with the state jurisdiction legislation, it is notable there is a scarcity of overseas comparisons we can draw on. In that respect, it would be fair to say that Australia is possibly a leading country in the establishment of anticorruption commissions. That in itself is nothing to be proud of because it implies, perhaps, that we have a problem with corruption in this country, but the reality is it's more so the case that we want to ensure in this country that we don't have corruption, and that's why we have taken the initiative here in the federal parliament. States and territories did so earlier in their own jurisdictions for that very reason—to prevent corruption from occurring.
This legislation went to a joint select committee of this parliament, for it to look into the legislation in detail and to call for public submissions in respect of it. It was interesting that we were presented with a very wide range of diverse opinions from interested parties, each of whom were able to share their very personal understanding and experiences of dealing with corrupt matters. It wasn't simply a case of looking at submissions from people who had an opinion or a point of view; it was a case of looking at submissions from people who had had direct experience in dealing with matters of corruption, and, in some cases, from people who were in fact investigated. That enabled the committee, in my view, to look at the legislation in a much more precise way than would otherwise normally occur when we as a parliament establish committees and the committees look at submissions that are based on opinion more than fact. But, in particular, the committee heard from commissioners of the state and territory anticorruption commissions that have been in place, in some cases, for many, many years. In doing so, the committee was able to draw on the experience of anticorruption commissioners that had actually gone through all of the issues that are often raised and that have been raised in the course of this very debate.
I also note, and I stress this point, that the committee also heard from Jaala Hinchcliffe, who is the current commissioner for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, or ACLEI. That is an agency that has now been in place for about 15 years, operating at the federal level under very similar guidelines to what this legislation proposes for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. And I come to this debate having had the privilege of serving on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which is the committee that oversees the work of that agency. So I have seen a federal anticorruption commission in operation, from the perspective of being a member of that committee. Again, when I look at this legislation, it's through the eyes of someone who has had the benefit of that experience, which others may not have had.
In the course of the joint select committee hearings, I noted that there were some amendments proposed that were ultimately adopted by the government. There were a number of suggestions made, in good faith, by people who had made submissions, that they believed would make the legislation just that little bit better. There were a lot of very good submissions, I have to say, but I want to refer to one in particular, which talked about a range of matters but focused on the issue of private and public hearings, which is one of the issues that seem to be the most contentious from what I hear from other members in respect of this proposed legislation. That comes from Mr Bruce McClintock SC.
Mr McClintock was the inspector of the New South Wales ICAC between 2017 and 2022. He is currently the inspector of the Northern Territory ICAC. But he has also been in the position, in 2005, where he conducted an inquiry into the New South Wales ICAC itself, and then he looked at the New South Wales legislation in 2015 as part of another inquiry. He's a person who has had an incredible amount of experience in actually overseeing how these commissions should and could work. With respect to the issue of public and private hearings and how well the agencies work, he made this point, which I think goes to the crux of what we need to be conscious of when we're looking at this legislation:
… ultimately the quality of these agencies—
he's referring to anticorruption agencies—
depends upon the people who are appointed by the government to run them. If you appoint a zealot to run an agency like ICAC, you'll have problems …
… … …
Ultimately, you have to appoint the right people and trust them to get on with the job. If you appoint the wrong people it won't matter what's in the legislation …
I believe that that comment really sums up the situation as I see it, from the perspective of having watched a number of state based commissions operate over the years and also from the ACLEI committee hearings in Canberra.
It seems to me—and, again, I rely on all those experiences—this legislation gets the balance right. While the amendments that the government has taken on board, I believe, make some improvement to it, broadly speaking, the legislation from the outset was well structured and drew on the shortfalls and problems that had been highlighted from within those other commissions. This legislation, in my view, ensures that through the consultation period and by listening to all of those who made submissions based on the advice of people like Mr McClintock that it will get the effectiveness, the fairness and the public confidence restored as a result. It is much more likely to be effective if we get the right person in the role than anything else.
The parliamentary committee did make some recommendations in respect to the protection of journalists, the remit of the inspector, the commission's ability to initiate its own inquiries, permitting the disclosure of information to medical practitioners, removing the wording 'corruption of any other kind' in paragraph 8(1)(e), and informing a person of the outcome of the investigations. It also picked up on three recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I want to go to the issue of private and public hearings. It was clear to me from the evidence presented to the committee that there was overwhelming support from those experts in the field and those in the best position to know that private hearings is the way to go, other than in those exceptional circumstances—albeit that the wording has now been taken out. There might be occasions when a public hearing might be appropriate but, generally speaking, private hearings were supported, overwhelmingly, by those experts. And there is good reason for that, as other members have spoken about in this debate and highlighted. In particular, the legislation makes clear that the commissioner's role is to conduct an investigation. The second sentence in the very first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum says:
The NACC would be an independent agency that would investigate and report on serious or systemic corruption in the Commonwealth public sector, refer evidence of criminal corrupt conduct for prosecution, and undertake education and prevention activities regarding corruption.
The fact that it is an investigation makes it very, very different to other inquiries and certainly very different to a royal commission, which I have heard some people try to compare it with. It is not a royal commission; it is an investigation, and it is different to other public inquiries that are held from time to time. Indeed, there is no other government investigative agency that conducts public hearings. I can say that, over the past 15 years, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has never conducted a public hearing. Yet, in the time I have been a member of the committee that oversees that commission, I have never once seen anyone approach the committee and say, 'We need to change this and have those hearings in public.' We have never received anything of the sort, which, to me, suggests that there were no problems with the way that agency was conducting its responsibilities.
The critical thing that was also raised with respect to public hearings was this: if a public hearing is held then the evidence or the statements made at the public hearing may very well interfere with a possible prosecution that might follow from the investigation if a prosecution is recommended by the commissioner by the end of the investigation and that in itself would undermine the whole purpose of the anti-corruption commission.
I would like to go into many of the other matters. But, just in summing up, this legislation has been not only widely discussed out there but scrutinised by some of the best legal minds in this country. Whilst I accept that there are some minor changes that might make it a little bit better, at the end of the day it will only be when the legislation is in place and a commissioner appointed that we'll see how well it functions. At that point, if there have to be any other minor amendments, then so be it. But I suspect that, right here and now, the legislation as it stands is the way to go.
Ms LE (Fowler) (17:00): I rise to speak on the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation currently before the house. Corruption has occurred in the past in all political parties, and, for this reason, the Australian public wants to see action now. To preserve the integrity of our democracy, it is important that we get it right. In a recent investigation by the New South Wales ICAC into political donations to the Labor Party, two men committed suicide because they were none the wiser about their involvement and could not fathom prosecution for a corrupt activity they believed they were innocent of.
One was a director at a building developer company, Wu International, who tragically took his own life prior to giving evidence at the inquiry. Based on a Sydney Morning Herald report, the deceased man was visited by two ICAC officers who delivered a summons for his compulsory private hearing on 25 June 2018. That visit, according to the suicide note he left his family, triggered memories of what happened to his father in China, who was interrogated by China's police and ended up in jail. According to the story, the man told his wife and daughter that he didn't want them to be associated with a criminal, even though he stated in his suicide note that he was not found guilty at the time of writing the letter to his family. He also seemed traumatised by the ICAC officers turning up on his doorstep, as well as by being told not to discuss his summons with any family member. As he stated in his suicide note:
They told me not to discuss it with any family member; in reality I have also chosen not to tell you either, to prevent you having to worry about it …
The note was translated into English in the report. A father and a husband, this director had no-one to turn to, no support to help him with his mental anguish, and I have no doubt of his feeling of shame and loss of face.
While I strongly support any measures that reduce corrupt conduct, the investigations cannot result in people feeling such pressure that it will lead them to take their own life. We need to be cognisant of the repercussions of such public investigations on the lives of people, especially when it comes to witnesses—and witnesses who are of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds—who are not the perpetrators but who come before the commission to provide their account and are there to assist with the inquiry. A cultural lens needs to be adopted because the issues of shame and loss of face weigh heavily in some communities.
The corruption inquiry into donations to the New South Wales Labor Party and those of other political parties put many faces to the corrupt conduct of those who donated and those who handled the money, and it damaged the reputations of those associated with the process. But who really were the guilty people? Who has been found to be really corrupt? Are they still in the system? We know all too well the name of Eddie Obeid, who's currently in jail serving time for his corrupt conduct during his time in the New South Wales parliament. But surely there are more. And what happened to the individual dubbed 'the $100,000 man', who provided the cash in an Aldi bag? How did he influence the Labor Party? Who benefited from the $100,000 donations? Who were the main beneficiaries of his donations? Who else did he influence? What happened to him and the people who donated to the major parties? Has this ICAC investigation fixed our political system? Has it made it any better?
Restoring trust in politics and politicians will take more than an ICAC inquiry, which brings with it huge sensationalist public scrutiny—as well as damaging reputations for decades to come—or, in the case of the two suicides connected to the New South Wales ICAC, leads to loss of life. We need our democratic institutions to operate effectively, with purpose, accountability and transparency, and to earn the trust and confidence of the Australian people. If you walk along the streets and talk to people, it has become general knowledge, unless of course you live under a rock, that among the professions least trusted by Australians are government ministers and politicians in general—just above used-car salespersons and lobbyists.
A study by the Australian National University in January 2022 found that a little more than three in 10 Australians, or 34.5 per cent, had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the federal government. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2019 Australian Election Study found trust in government reached its lowest level on record, with just one in four Australians saying they had confidence in their political leaders and institutions. ICAC in New South Wales and similar bodies have tried to bring back integrity and accountability to our political system and processes through public inquiries and scrutiny, but I doubt if it has restored the trust that many of us now holding public office desire.
There are high expectations of what the National Anti-Corruption Commission will achieve once it is established, and rightly so. Trust in our elected representatives is low with the Australian public. I hope what we're trying to achieve in this House with this bill is small steps towards restoring our public's faith in our political processes and people. This is why I will be proposing amendments to enhance the work of the commission in trying to weed out corruption within our political processes. Having a solid understanding of how to engage respectfully and effectively with our culturally diverse communities will enable the commission to eventually get to the bottom of finding out the real culprits involved in corrupt behaviour. Investigators need to be trained and mindful of how to engage with CALD communities to get the maximum benefit from their investigations, while ensuring we do not face future tragic outcomes.
I applaud the effort that has gone into constructing this bill, with the leadership of the member for Indi, and the consultation which has seen community groups and multiple sectors contribute to the committee's report on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The government should be commended for recognising the importance of this bill and for their willingness to cooperate with the crossbench to give this bill the robust debate it deserves and hear from all sides of the chamber. But I feel it is my duty to raise concerns about the potential harm the bill will cause in the lives of some multicultural communities and individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds across the country if we don't put in place measures to create a culture of inclusivity within the commission and assist people to participate in providing evidence or have dialogues with the commission and investigators, without resorting to self-harm.
You have heard my story, showed empathy about my struggles and welcomed me as a migrant and refugee who left war-torn Vietnam, dreaming of a better future. I stand in this House, the people's house, not just representing the diverse electorate of Fowler but also as a voice for multicultural Australia. I stand here in the chamber and can speak English. Unfortunately, not all migrants and not all Australians are afforded the same opportunity to the English language. There are many communities across the nation that primarily speak a language other than English, and it is because of these barriers that these communities are targeted by corrupt individuals looking to use them in their corrupt activities.
In recent years, to advance their own corrupt agenda, political parties have used and taken advantage of Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who do not understand our political system. The most widely known example is branch stacking. You saw it in Victoria; you've seen it in New South Wales; and, if you are a member of certain political parties, you probably have watched it unfold before you. It happens more often than not. It is something that happens all the time, but it is rarely spoken about because of the possible backlash, the bomb it could throw on one's career. In addition to branch stacking, political parties see multicultural communities as walking ATMs, and they are regularly used as fundraising tools during election campaigns. Some multicultural groups and communities feel that donating funds to political parties is the only way to have a say and make a contribution to the political process—a belief that's reinforced by corrupt individuals seeking to further their political agenda.
You may be wondering how this relates to vulnerable and marginalised communities and how it relates to this bill. It is multicultural communities who are targeted in these campaigns for power by individuals wishing to climb the political ladder, often at their expense. Often it involves some cash and signing on the dotted line to become a member of a party you do not believe in or really understand anything about. In my mind, undoubtedly this is a form of corruption as financial incentives are used to gain power. But in a cultural context maybe someone is only asking a relative for a favour. Is it a favour or is it corruption? Where do the lines cross? When summoned to a corruption investigation most people will not understand that they are simply participating in an investigation. It is almost as if you are being charged for a crime and you have no idea what the crime you committed was.
Since my election to office, I have had dozens of constituents walk into my office, with jury summons or government correspondence, to seek help to translate because they themselves cannot understand what is being asked of them. It is, therefore, in my proposed amendments that the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill include provisions for translation services, both in the process of summoning an individual and during the commission's process. This will reduce the risk of trauma caused by language barriers and allow linguistically diverse Australians to participate in the commission's processes in an efficient manner.
The job of the commission is to investigate corruption, but, from my perspective, we still live in a society that upholds the belief of innocence until proven guilty. The potential mental health impacts of being summoned before the commission can cause lasting trauma, especially if the person in question does not have a support network and is unable to speak about the investigation in public due to the confidential nature of the commission's work.
I urge both sides of the chamber to support my amendments, including providing mental health and support services to individuals who seek help through a qualified social support worker or a qualified health practitioner, along with provisions to protect the disclosure of any information discussed between a person and a support person to the commission. Over recent years, our nation has seen firsthand the impact of mental health and its long impacts on Australians.
I hope my amendments, which I will move in the consideration in detail stage, will be adopted by the House to ensure Australians can trust they will be supported during the commission's process by the commission offering the necessary support. It will reduce the trepidation a person, especially those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, may experience. It may even encourage individuals to be more cooperative throughout the process.
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (17:12): I am very pleased today to rise to speak on this historic bill—National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022—to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission for Australia. This bill will fulfil an important election promise to legislate this Anti-Corruption Commission with the teeth. It will end the years of inaction that we saw under the previous government, who made a promise but failed to deliver on it in that term.
This is an important measure that many people in our community care a lot about. When I talk to people in the electorate that I represent this is something that they're very passionate about, because people want to see the people who represent them in this place held accountable. They want to trust in our democracy. Where we see corruption, and people able to get away with it, it undermines trust in our democracy and it undermines trust in our politicians. As we know, trust in our politicians and our system is continuing to decline and this is something incumbent on all of us in this place to address. Obviously, most people who wish to represent their community want to do so in an honest and transparent way and really want to serve their communities in this place. This measure is important in ensuring that that trust with the community is upheld. I am very pleased that this has been one of the first priorities of the Albanese Labor government.
I want to commend the fantastic work that the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister and the whole team have done. I also want to thank the committee that have looked at this bill and recommended some amendments, which were agreed across the different representatives of different parties on that committee, and, as we should, we are listening to those. We put it to that committee in order to get the best possible bill. We want all members of this parliament to support this National Anti-Corruption Commission. I want to commend their work.
As I said, trust in government and our public institutions has plummeted in the past few years. Transparency International's corruption perception index saw Australia fall 12 points and its ranking drop from seventh to 18th; we actually went from 14th to 18th in the last year alone. The Economist democracy index also recorded a similar drop, with Australia going from sixth in 2012 to ninth this year. This bill will help stop this rot and restore faith in politics by bringing accountability, integrity and a higher standard to public office.
Australians had to listen to three years of excuses under the previous government before it finally gave up and admitted it would not deliver on its promise to establish a national anticorruption commission. The election results show that this meant a lot to the Australian public; they did not forget that promise and the fact that it was not delivered on. They were fed up with broken promises, cronyism, dodgy deals, secrecy, a ministerial code of conduct that was broken with impunity and a government-wide contempt for the truth. We've seen a change of government, and I'm proud this is high on our list of priorities. We are absolutely committed to this bill and governing in the country's interest, not only in our own. Australians have waited long enough. They want and deserve better.
This bill will empower the National Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. It will have the power to probe ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory officeholders, employees of all government entities and government contractors. It will have discretion to start inquiries of its own initiative or in response to referrals from anybody who wishes to make one. It will be able to investigate both criminal and noncriminal corrupt conduct, and there will be no limit to how far back in time it can go to seek out and stamp out corruption.
The definition of 'corrupt conduct' will be key to the commission's jurisdiction. It is key because it is consistent with existing definitions at the state and territory level, and with the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act. The definition captures conduct that involves abuse of office, breach of public trust, misuse of information or corruption of any kind. Conduct by any person that adversely affects the honest or impartial exercise of a Commonwealth public official's functions will also be included. Existing integrity agencies will continue to deal with other conduct that could adversely affect public administration such as external fraud.
The commissioner will have powers similar to those of a royal commission, and will be able to use these powers to launch an investigation if the commissioner believes serious or systemic corrupt conduct is involved. The commissioner will be able to order the production of information to undertake preliminary inquiries in order to determine whether an allegation could be serious or systemic corruption. That independence of the commissioner to direct those inquiries is an incredibly important part of the design of this anticorruption commission.
The decision to hold public or private hearings will rest with the commissioner. Public hearings will be held where the commissioner is satisfied that it would be in the public interest and that exceptional circumstances justify doing so. This has been a key point of discussion around this bill, and something that people in my community have raised a lot with me; they have been concerned about the 'exceptional circumstances' provision around public hearings. But there are important legal reasons why not all hearings should be public. It's important to not prejudice future investigations that come out of it, and initial investigations may need to be private in order to get the information needed. This bill strikes the right balance to ensure the benefits of holding public hearings are balanced against the potential negative impacts. Relevant factors in determining whether to hold a public hearing will include the nature of the corruption issue, the benefits of public awareness and unfair prejudice to reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that may be caused. This is important so that the pros of holding hearings in public are balanced with other potential negative impacts. Without limiting what the commissioner can consider when determining whether to hold a hearing in public, the legislation will prescribe a number of relevant factors, and it's really important they're considered.
Reporting at the end of investigations will provide transparency and also support the commission's prevention and education function. After completing a corruption investigation, the commissioner will be required to prepare a report setting out their findings and recommendations. The commissioner will be able to make findings of corrupt conduct but not of criminal liability. Criminal liability can only be determined by a court. The reporting requirements will ensure that reports are made public where matters dealt with in a corruption investigation are already in the public domain or where it is in the public interest to make the findings of an investigation public. Reports will be required to be tabled in each house of parliament when a public hearing has been held during the course of the investigation. When reports are not required to be tabled, reports may nonetheless be tabled and made public under the usual processes of the parliament.
The commissioner will also be able to publish public versions of reports when satisfied it is in the public interest to do so and if procedural fairness requirements have been met. The commissioner will be required to provide procedural fairness, by ensuring that those who are subject of a critical finding, opinion or recommendation in a report are afforded an opportunity to respond.
I want to talk more about the prevention and education functions. These are really important facets of the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, because what we ultimately want it to do is prevent future corruption, and part of that will require educating people about what that is. It will have a mandate to undertake corruption prevention and education functions, including undertaking public inquiries to examine corruption risks and vulnerabilities, as well as measures to prevent corruption. The commission will provide guidance and information to support the public sector to understand the concept of corrupt conduct and to identify and address vulnerabilities to corruption. This work will be informed by the insights the commission draws from its investigations and the intelligence it collects about corruption. The commission will also engage in broader public education about its role in corruption risks and about the avenues to report corrupt conduct.
As I've said previously, it's critically important that the commission be independent, and this will be secured in a number of ways. The commission will be able to conduct investigations on its own initiative or in response to referrals or allegations from any source. Agency heads will be required to report any corruption issue in their agency to the commission if they suspect it could be serious or systemic. The appointment of the commissioners and deputy commissioners will be subject to approval by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and the appointees will have the security of tenure comparable to that of a federal judge. The legislation provides for the parliamentary joint committee to review and make recommendations on the sufficiency of the commission's budget.
The commission will be overseen by the parliamentary joint committee and an inspector. The parliamentary joint committee will comprise 12 members—three government, two opposition and one crossbench member from each house, including a government chair with a casting vote. In addition to confirming appointments and reviewing the commission's budget, the committee's oversight role will include reviewing the commission's performance and its annual reports. The inspector will deal with any corruption issues arising in the commission and complaints about the commission.
Another really important issue that many have raised is the risk to people's reputations, which could affect the ability to investigate serious allegations. The commissioner's investigational function will be balanced with strong safeguards to ensure that corruption investigations do not cause undue reputational damage, including the requirement for hearings to be held in private unless there are exceptional circumstances; the requirement for the commissioner to clarify the capacity in which a witness is appearing at a public hearing; the requirement for certain sensitive evidence to be received in private; a provision for non-disclosure discretions about a notice or summons or to protect sensitive information; an express ability for the commissioner to make statements at any time to avoid damage to a person's reputation; and provision for the inclusion of statements in investigation reports where it is appropriate and practicable to avoid damage to a person's reputation. If the commissioner forms the opinion that a person has not engaged in corrupt conduct, a statement to that effect will be made. If a person gives evidence at a hearing that is not the subject of any findings or opinions in relation to the corruption investigation, a statement will be made to that effect.
The legislation also provides, importantly, strong protections for whistleblowers against the adverse consequences, including criminal offences, and immunities. Public officials making disclosures to the commission will also be protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. The Attorney-General intends to introduce separate reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to improve whistleblower protections, with the aim of having these reforms in place when the commission commences operation. There are also protections for journalists. The bill ensures that there are appropriate protections for journalists and persons assisting the journalist in a professional capacity. This includes an exemption from answering questions or providing information that would enable the identity of a source to be ascertained.
The bill recognises existing rules for political and parliamentary activities and makes it clear that the use of public resources to conduct parliamentary business in accordance with the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 or the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is not within the commission's jurisdiction. It also confirms that political activities that do not involve or affect the exercise of powers or functions by a public official or the use of public resources cannot constitute corrupt conduct. The commission will only be able to investigate a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, or the Australian Electoral Commission if the AEC referred the matter of to the commission.
The government has committed substantial funding to this commission, $262 million over four years, for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. This will ensure that the commission has the staff, capabilities and capacity to triage the referrals and allegations it receives, conduct timely investigations and undertake corruption prevention and education activities. It provides for the parliamentary joint committee to regularly review and report on the sufficiency of the commission's budget.
This is a really important bill and a historic moment for this parliament that we are establishing this National Anti-Corruption Commission. I'm incredibly proud that the Albanese Labor government is delivering on this promise, unlike the previous government, that failed to do so. This is really important for our communities and for the trust that Australians hold in our democracy.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (17:27): Integrity is the cornerstone of democracy. I'm so pleased to be standing here today to speak in support of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. The road leading to the establishment of this bill has been long, sometimes difficult and emotionally testing, but I cannot adequately express how deeply grateful I am to be standing here today as we take the final steps towards rebuilding trust with the Australian people.
Two years ago this month I first spoke in this place on the importance of the establishment of an integrity commission, one that was a key promise of the coalition at the 2019 election, and just one year ago I stood in this House to second a motion by the member for Indi to suspend standing orders to allow her Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill to be debated. As I said at the time, this was not a decision I took lightly at all. It was difficult. But I held a strong view then, as I do now, that the establishment of a robust integrity commission was of the utmost importance. We owed it to the Australian people to deliver a commission they could have faith in, and not least because this was a promise that we had made to them.
In fact, it was a study of the 2019 federal election that saw some startling statistics, and as an elected representative I was shocked and saddened. The Australian Election Study, conducted by the Australian National University, found that Australian's satisfaction with democracy was at its lowest since the dismissal in 1975. Just 59 per cent of Australians reported being satisfied with how democracy was working, down 27 percentage points from the record high of 86 per cent in 2007. Professor Ian McAllister, who led the study, said that the findings were a wake-up call, going on to say:
In one of the most worrying findings from our study, a little over one-in-10 Australians, 12 per cent, believe the government is run for 'all the people'.
In contrast more than half, 56 per cent, say government is run for a 'few big interests'.
… … …
With faith in democracy taking major hits all over the globe, winning back the people's trust and satisfaction would appear to be one of the most pressing and urgent challenges facing our political leaders and institutions.
He concluded:
I've been studying elections for 40 years, and never have I seen such poor returns for public trust in and satisfaction with democratic institutions.
Only nine months after the 2019 election, any trust we did have was put to the test, as public officials across Australia asked so much of their constituencies as the pandemic took hold. The pandemic is a good example of why there needs to be a high level of trust so that our communities can have confidence in the advice we're giving them. As elected representatives we cannot take any trust we do have for granted, and nor should we ever believe or act as though we're above reproach. We must do everything we can with the power and privilege that we hold in this House to build back the trust that has eroded over time. And as we are the only jurisdiction in Australia without an integrity commission, this is much overdue.
Throughout my first term as the federal member for Bass I spoke with many members of the northern Tasmanian community who wanted to see measures put in place that ensured that politicians were accountable for their actions. Despite some within this place dismissing the establishment of an anticorruption commission as a fringe issue and not an issue that our communities care about, I had no doubt that it is deeply important to Australians. Some of the communication I've received from constituents in my own electorate and across Tasmania include: 'Now more than ever we need strong ethics in government. We need an ICAC with teeth, a strong national anticorruption body that can actually enforce the ethical standards necessary in a functional democracy.' And: 'Politicians should not have a different set of rules to everyone else. Exposing corruption needs to be seen to be done to restore public confidence in our political system.'
Many in my community also expressed much frustration over the lack of consequences for public officials. There's a strong perception that there's one set of rules for parliamentarians and another for the general public. Right across the private sector, businesses have put checks and balances in place to ensure that their employees are held to a certain standard, with repercussions in place for breaches. Parliamentarians should be no different, was the sentiment of many northern Tasmanians—and they are right. During question-and-answer sessions with a group of migrants a few years ago I was struck by the focus on trust in government and trust in those elected to represent their constituencies. With many having migrated from countries where corruption by public officials was rife, this level of concern was understandable.
While I don't believe we're in dire straits, last year it was reported that Australia had plummeted in Transparency International's latest Corruption Perceptions Index, the world's most cited ranking of how clean or corrupt every country's public sector is believed to be. Australia fell by four points on the 100-point scale in 2021. And while we were ranked seventh out of 180 countries in 2012, level with Norway, last year we had fallen to 18th while Norway had moved up to fourth place. Some may consider 18th of 180 reasonable, but these findings concern me. Democracy is fragile, and it requires vigilance to protect it.
At the core, this bill is about restoring public trust and is explicitly anticorruption, which is important. But I also want to see an increased focus on the positive promotion of integrity in public life. When it comes to those involved in politics, a pro-integrity focus can help lay the strongest foundations for building public trust and ensuring that the public has confidence in our democracy. And it may seem idealistic, but if elected representatives were to view their actions and decision-making on matters, no matter how big or small, through the lens of integrity, we may start avoiding some of the challenges that continue to overshadow much of the good work undertaken in all levels of government.
While I am overall supportive of this bill, there are a few areas that in my mind need refining, including what constitutes corrupt conduct. I'm of the firm belief that any definition must be viewed through the lens of how it will ensure trust and confidence in our public administration for people who interact with government. Additionally, as raised by the member for Clark, it's a necessary part of the integrity framework that we must also look at in ensuring that strong protections are in place for whistleblowers who do come forward. Far too often, people's lives are destroyed when they come forward to report wrongdoing. I note that the Attorney-General has acknowledged that there'll be additional legislation to deal with this issue, and I look forward to reviewing that in further detail when it becomes available.
I commend the member for Clark for his tireless dedication to this issue over many years, and I reconfirm my support for strengthening protections for whistleblowers. I believe that the number one job of a local member is to listen to their community—their issues, challenges, needs and desires—and to take those views to Canberra. As such, any project delivered or funding secured for the northern Tasmanian region while I've been the member is, I believe, due to the strong representation I bring on behalf of my community. So it's disheartening to see that there's a level of scepticism that exist in communities across the country when it comes to the funding of projects. As parliamentarians we need to take the necessary measures to bring back public trust in how government funding is utilised and delivered.
A significant source of debate on this issue has centred around whether there should be a public versus a private approach to any hearings, and this is certainly a component of the legislation that has concerned my community. This is a matter I've explored at length, and I'm inclined to support amendments during consideration in detail to remove the exceptional circumstances test in favour of a public interest test. I believe it's an unnecessarily high bar, and ultimately discretion should rest with the commission. It's also of critical importance that the public has confidence in how the government of the day supports the NACC committee. Should the government of the day not follow the recommendations of the committee with regard to finances and resources, I think it's reasonable for the minister to explain their reasons to the parliament, and I'm of a mind to support amendments that will achieve this.
Notwithstanding these improvements that I would like to see, this is a good bill and worthy of the House's support. I sincerely look forward to seeing this legislation passed with broad support because, as I've previously expressed, any bill put forward must be a result of nonpartisan collaboration. It cannot be a political instrument, or it will be doomed to fail before it begins and it will be in my view counterintuitive to enhancing trust. I believe that what we have in front of us today has succeeded in this goal, and I do want to congratulate the government and in particular the Attorney-General for the work that they've undertaken to get to this point.
I'd also like to acknowledge and thank the work of my own colleagues the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Menzies on the work that they've have undertaken on this bill. Since taking on his role after the recent election the shadow AG's door has always been open to me, and we have had many constructive conversations on this issue. The member for Menzies is a wonderful asset to the parliament. From our many discussions I know how important the establishment of an integrity commission is to him, and he has worked diligently in his role on the committee reviewing this legislation. Indeed the entire committee deserves much credit for the work that they did in a very short time frame to provide a comprehensive report on the legislation.
Many people have championed this cause over many years, but of course I believe that there's one person in particular who deserves acknowledgement for the fact that we are finally here today debating this critical piece of legislation. It would be remiss of me not to mention my friend the member for Indi, who has worked incredibly hard to help shape a commission that not only is anti corruption but has a focus on the positive promotion of integrity, and she has led that by her example and in particular her commitment to bringing everyone on the journey. The member for Indi's unwavering determination is to be admired and applauded, and I'm proud to have had the opportunity to work with her.
Democracy is a value we cherish in Australia, and indeed Australians have fought and died to uphold and defend our democratic freedoms. We must remain vigilant to threats that would erode it, and integrity is central to that aim. This legislation strengthens our democracy, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (17:38): This has been a long and comprehensive debate, with many strong contributions from across the chamber. For legislation as important as this, anything less than a full and frank debate would've been a missed opportunity. No member of this place can say that they have not had the opportunity to rise and speak on this bill, and if they haven't, there's still time tonight.
Integrity in government was one of the issues that determined the outcome of the 2022 federal election. Across Australia the voters wanted a change. Indeed the very make-up of this chamber is a reflection of this fact. Before the 2022 federal election, voters across Bean frequently told me they wanted to elect a government which would return integrity and trust to parliament. For many it was the most important issue that they wanted to see addressed. In one instance a retired Commonwealth public servant explained that he was keenly watching the work on the integrity commission, noting that he'd always upheld the APS values and code of conduct. However, he was ashamed that there aren't the same clear values for federal politicians. This is another part of the integrity ecosystem that we need to turn our attention to as well. This retired public servant was not alone. The people in my electorate, and indeed across Australia, had no trust in the previous government's willingness to address these matters and restore trust and integrity into government.
The previous government had already broken their promise to establish an effective anticorruption commission. It was 2018 when they stood before the Australian people and promised a robust, resourced, real system that would protect the integrity of Commonwealth and public administration. Of course, this was never met. Instead, they voted dozens of times to block the establishment of a national anticorruption commission with teeth, or prevented one from even being debated, including proposals put forward by the member for Indi. At best they developed a weak exposure draft, which was so bad that the Centre for Public Integrity denounced it as 'a sham designed to cover up corruption' and 'the weakest watchdog in the country'.
Meanwhile, scandal after scandal went unchecked, and public trust in government continued to diminish. There was clear evidence to this effect. A Vote Compass survey found that 85 per cent of Australians believed that corruption was a real problem in this country, and, according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, Australia had plummeted seven places since 2012, from 11th out of 180 countries to 18th. These were alarming findings. As argued by Transparency International, corruption erodes trust, weakens democracy, hampers economic development and further exacerbates inequality, poverty, social division and the environmental crisis. This argument was supported by other studies. For instance, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Australia Institute released a report in 2018 that found worsening perceptions of corruption in Australia had potentially reduced GDP by over $72 billion or four per cent.
It's clear that we must restore public trust and integrity to government—to protect our democracy and our social contract and for our economic wellbeing—and this legislation is critical to this mission. Before the election, we promised to deliver a national anticorruption commission as a priority, and now is our opportunity to do so before we rise this year. We can deliver on our promise to the Australian people, including the residents in my electorate that have so clearly expressed their frustrations.
Since being elected, we've gone straight to work. Drawing on the best elements of state and territory anticorruption commissions and laws, we've introduced the bill to establish the commission. We have taken a collaborative approach to informing and strengthening this bill. Comprehensive consultation has been undertaken with legal and integrity experts such as the Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International Australia and the Law Council of Australia. The government has also held a series of roundtables and individual meetings. The Attorney-General's Department consulted with all relevant government departments and key agencies on the draft legislation, including the consequential and transitional provisions bill.
This bill is a reflection of listening and a product of consultation. The government has listened to feedback, and the amendments to the bill reflect this. On 10 November, the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation handed down its advisory report on this legislation. It made six recommendations to strengthen the legislation, which were unanimously supported by the committee. The six recommendations include, firstly, extending protections to persons assisting a journalist in their work as a journalist from being compelled to identify or provide information that would assist to ascertain an informant's identity; secondly, providing the inspector with a proactive audit function limited to the commissioner's use of witness summons and arrest warrant powers; thirdly, expressly providing that the commission may commence an investigation on its own initiative; fourthly, permitting the disclosure of information that is subject to a non-disclosure notation to a medical practitioner or psychologist; fifthly, removing clause 8(1)(e), 'corruption of any other kind', from the definition of 'corrupt conduct'; and, finally, requiring the commissioner to advise a person of the outcome of a corruption investigation if the commissioner investigates the conduct of the person and has formed the opinion or made a finding that the person has not engaged in corrupt conduct.
These are sound recommendations, and the government has agreed to these amendments. Further to this, the government has agreed to most of the recommendations from the reviews of the legislation conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills respectively.
This approach of engagement, consultation, review and listening means that this bill was the strongest and most comprehensive integrity package before this place. It also means that it has the best chance of receiving the support of a majority of this parliament, something essential to restoring trust across this parliament.
Most importantly, the bill's principles, taken to the election, have been endorsed by the Australian people. For instance, we promised that our National Anti-Corruption Commission would cover a broad jurisdiction, with the capacity to investigate serious or systemic conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. This bill captures ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory office holders, employees of all government entities and government contractors, and any person who attempts or conspires to improperly influence a Commonwealth public official.
The commission will operate independently of government, with a full suite of powers similar to those of a royal commission. It will have discretion to commence inquiries into serious or systemic corruption on its own initiative or in response to referrals. This includes from whistleblowers, who'll have strong protections, and there are exemptions for journalists to protect the identity of sources. It will have the discretion to undertake investigations of both criminal and non-criminal conduct and refer matters to another agency, or to take no action. It will be able to refer findings that could constitute criminal conduct to the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Importantly, the bill grants retrospective powers. It will have the power to investigate allegations of serious or systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment. After what we have seen over recent years, and the diminishing public trust in government as a consequence, this is extremely important.
To restore public trust in government, it is also important for the commission to have the power to hold public hearings. This bill supports this power, granting public hearings in exceptional circumstances and where it's in the public interest to do so. The question of pubic hearings and this bill has been a source of some discussion and commentary recently. It's important that the structure of the public hearing function is done in a way that balances reputational and wellbeing safeguard considerations. It is worth looking into this matter a little further and in detail.
The commissioner's investigation function will be balanced with strong safeguards to ensure that corruption investigations do not cause undue damage to a person's reputation or wellbeing. These include requiring hearings to be held privately, unless the commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest and exceptional circumstances justify holding a hearing in public; requiring the commissioner to clarify the capacity in which a witness is appearing at a public hearing; requiring certain sensitive evidence to be received in private; provision for nondisclosure directions about a notice or summons, or to protect sensitive information; permitting disclosure of information that is subject to a nondisclosure notation to a medical practitioner or psychologist; an express ability for the commissioner to make public statements at any time to avoid damage to a person's reputation; and provision for the inclusion of statements in the investigation reports, where it is appropriate and practicable, to avoid damage to a person's reputation.
If the commissioner forms the opinion that a person has not engaged in corrupt conduct, a statement to that effect would be issued. Furthermore, if a person gives evidence at a hearing and is not the subject of any findings or opinions in relation to the corruption investigation, a similar statement to that effect would be issued. While I acknowledge that there may be different views on the question of hearings, the considerations of wellbeing and reputation are sound ones to guide us in considering these matters. In the pursuit of the guilty, we must not allow the innocent to be caught up as collateral casualties.
This bill ensures stringent oversight of the commission, establishing a parliamentary joint committee and an independent inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The committee's oversight role will include reviewing the commission's performance and its annual reports. The inspector will deal with any corruption issues arising from the commission and complaints about the commission. The commission will also operate with procedural fairness, and its findings will be subject to judicial review. Collectively, these principles will establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission with real power and authority.
As promised before the election, this legislation is a priority for this government. Our goal is to have it up and running by mid-2023. Work is already underway to ensure that the commission is led by the most capable and qualified people, consistent with our commitment to restoring transparency and merit to statutory appointments. We've begun the search for Australia's first national anti-corruption commissioner. Any appointments will be subject to the passage of the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation and approval by the parliamentary joint committee.
It will be well funded. As outlined in the budget, the government has committed $262 million over four years for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. This funding will ensure that the commission has the staff, capabilities and capacity to properly consider referrals and allegations, conduct timely investigations and undertake corruption prevention and education activities. This funding is very important to the proper functioning of the commission. We can present the best-designed organisation to the House and empower it with all of the necessary legislative powers—as we have—but, if we don't provide adequate funding for the operation and staffing of the commission, its powers will never be properly exercised.
Funding is such an important part of the story here. As I said, the government has committed substantial funding over the next four years for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. This funding is almost $90 million more than the previous government was publicly prepared to put forward. The funding will be critical to the operations of the commission. It will ensure that the commission has the staff, capabilities and capacity to triage referrals and allegations it receives and conduct timely investigations.
I'm proud of what we have achieved so far. We are on track to deliver what we promised to Australians and my constituents in Bean. This bill will establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission with real power and authority. Importantly, our approach consistently meets the path of cooperation and collaboration so that all Australians are heard. Ultimately, the agenda of this government is driven by us working to make sure that all Australians are heard. The establishment of a National Anti-Corruption Commission will begin the important work of restoring the faith of the Australian people in their parliament and government.
As I've said at the beginning of my contribution to this debate, this has been a long discussion. I look forward to seeing the support for this bill from right across the parliament.
Mr BIRRELL (Nicholls—Deputy Nationals Whip) (17:53): I support an anticorruption commission. Corruption is insidious, and it undermines our public institutions. It must be rooted out—no ifs, no buts. But that's not to say that the pursuit of corrupt activity should all take place in the glaring spotlight of public hearings. The National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 will give extraordinary powers to the commission to investigate not only parliamentarians but also public servants, contractors and any person exercising powers under the laws of the Commonwealth. We must get the framework right. People in public life, particularly those elected to office, should not be immune from scrutiny, but there must be limits that protect fundamental rights that apply to every Australian citizen. The goal is integrity, not harm in the pursuit of it.
It is common, in my experience, for people who could and perhaps should make a contribution to public life to say they are deterred by the intense, unwavering and sometimes unfair scrutiny. The most basic right of any accused person is the assumption of innocence in the absence of finding guilt. We have seen all too frequently where the activities of integrity bodies enter the public domain and the allegations, often untested, take on a life of their own. Reputations can be ruined, careers can be destroyed and families can be torn apart. It can be trial by media sometimes. The commission has the power to impose nondisclosure notations or gag orders on people. These prevent them from disclosing that they have appeared before the commission. Our view on this side is that it is essential that there be limited exceptions to this in the interests of the mental health of the people who come before the commission. People should be able to make a disclosure to an immediate family member—as long as they are not also a person of interest—a medical professional or a mental health professional. This is essential to prevent people feeling like they have nowhere to turn and was supported by the Law Council of Australia.
The bill abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. Our amendments ensure this is only done when absolutely necessary because of the significant impost on fundamental rights; again, these amendments were supported by the Law Council of Australia. We also think it is important that investigations do not go on indefinitely. Our amendment would impose a 12-month time limit on investigations. The National Anti-Corruption Commission must be framed for the real world, not for a misguided notion.
I and others in this place take offence to a line that is frequently peddled by some Independents and so-called Independents, that the political system is inherently corrupt, that political parties are corrupt and—if you follow the flawed logic—that the members of those parties are also corrupt. I entered this place not for personal gain but to serve the people of Nicholls and the nation, and I know that is true of many people on all sides of the chamber. The motivation is, I believe, universal, and matters that will fall under the ambit of the commissioner are the rare exception, I believe, not the rule. We do little to engender trust in political processes and politicians by framing the purpose for establishing an anticorruption body in this way. This place and the other place are the proper forums for prosecuting issues of competency and accountability. Sometimes for Independents, particularly, and others, having been elected in large part on claims of a lack of accountability, the answer is to use these processes in this place to expose that. A corruption commission is singly focused on corruption and should be framed as such. It should be framed as something that is focused on corruption and not as a political forum or, worse, as a political tool.
There is a glaring omission in this bill—that is, unions. While this bill proposes a commission with broad powers, the powers of a royal commission, there is a glaring omission when it comes to the reach of those powers. Parliamentarians and Canberra public servants, but also Australian Defence Force, Australian police, NDIS and aged-care workers, contractors, subcontractors can all be scrutinised but not unions. The amendments we propose would ensure the extraordinary powers of the commissioner apply in a fair and reasonable way, including closing the loophole that government has inserted for its union mates. Why shouldn't integrity also apply to unions? Why should they receive a 'get out of jail free' card?
This bill isn't perfect. There were six recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation—or the NACC, as it is called in offices around this place—and a plethora of additional comments from the coalition members of that committee. I particularly congratulate the newly elected member for Menzies on bringing his legal background to bear. Ensuring that the bill gets the balance right between stamping out corruption and protecting the rights of everyday people brought before it is an important balance. There is no place for corruption but there is also no place for trampling on the human rights of people.
Extensive recommendations from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills highlighted the concerns around lack of specificity in definitions and use of coercive powers without adequate safeguards when they're not truly a last resort. Further recommendations came from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, including concerns about the use of gag orders and their long application, which can harm the mental health of people brought before the commission, and about the broad use of contempt offences. The inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security into the telecommunications surveillance powers that would be given to the National Anti-Corruption Commission is still ongoing.
We've engaged in good faith because we want the National Anti-Corruption Commission to be, as the Attorney-General stated during question time, as good as it can be—thank you, Attorney-General. We want to strengthen the NACC. The coalition's amendments are about strengthening the National Anti-Corruption Commission and its ability to pursue corrupt conduct. This is sensibly balanced against protecting the fundamental rights of those who come before the Anti-Corruption Commission and restricting the harm that might be inflicted by the unnecessary or premature airing of allegations. Justice must be seen to be done, and this isn't always the case. It's most certainly not the case when the accused—who, if it were a criminal case, would have the right to face their accuser and to mount a defence—are, in this domain, subject to gag orders and an inability to participate in any public forum.
Eminent experts in this field, including the Law Council of Australia, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties and the South Australian Bar Association, have sought to ensure that this bill has adequate protections. We think that our amendments reflect this and that the commissioner should not be the sole decision-maker on the commencement of a public hearing. We think that good governance would require that this power be shared between the commissioner and a deputy commissioner. This proposal was supported by the Australia Institute, the Victorian Inspectorate and others. It should be compulsory, not optional, for the commissioner to consider factors—including whether confidential information is involved, whether there would be unfair prejudice to a person's reputation and whether a person giving evidence has a particular vulnerability, such as being under direct instruction or control of another person—in determining whether a public hearing should be held. This was supported by the Queensland Law Society, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australia Institute.
It's appropriate to have a National Anti-Corruption Commission. The commission requires substantial powers in order to pursue corrupt activity. Corruption isn't endemic, but it's an ever-present threat to our institutions and proper governance. The powers of the commission need to be broad given the conduct it will be tasked to investigate, but it should not be unfettered power. There must be protections for those who will come before the commission, including sensible limits on public hearings and gag orders. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is not and cannot be a political forum, and it cannot under any circumstances be a political tool. It needs to exist to expose corruption and bring those engaged in it to account, and it should have the necessary powers to do that job but no more.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle—Deputy Speaker) (18:03): I am very pleased to rise in support of the government's National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022, because on 21 May this year the Albanese Labor government was elected with a mandate to establish a powerful, independent and transparent body to rectify an apparent gap in our national integrity frameworks. We're delivering on this promise, and we're doing it right now, this year. Our Labor government is serious about rebuilding faith and trust in our democratic processes and ensuring that the federal government is always focused on the interests of the Australian people, not on its own political self-interest.
There is no greater priority now, because a government is nothing without integrity. As members of parliament we're elected via a democratic process—a robust, independent democratic process. We must be accountable to the Australian people, who put their faith in us to govern this country. If there is no oversight then there is no transparency.
But, shamefully, for the last decade we've seen the consequences of a Liberal government who operated behind closed doors. We saw plenty of very questionable behaviour. We had a Prime Minister in the member for Cook who appointed himself into several ministries, which was a shock to all Australians but perhaps there were none more shocked than his own coalition colleagues in the Liberal and National party rooms. If ever there was a definition of questionable behaviours, the former government embodied it. While this might not meet the definition of 'corruption', it no doubt offends our democratic system of government. It no doubt offended the Australian people, who made their voice known at the ballot box on the 21 May.
Two years ago I spoke in this chamber about integrity and, more specifically, the lack of it under the former government. At that time we'd seen the former government use a $100 million public grants program as a Liberal Party re-election fund in the sports rorts scandal, which impacted Newcastle's own Newcastle Olympic Football Club. They had a terrific application, by all accounts, had it been assessed by an independent body—well, it was in fact found to have scored very highly. But they were denied funding in that round, and we all know why now. We've all seen the colour coded spreadsheets. We've all been through the nasty, grubby sports rorts scandal that took place under the watch of the former government.
We've seen the immeasurable harm that the disgraceful and unlawful robodebt scheme caused for thousands of vulnerable Australians, and all of us on this side of the House have had to try to support so many of our constituents who were caught up in that unlawful scandal.
Mr Repacholi: Despicable.
Ms CLAYDON: It was despicable behaviour, and we are yet to see the full account, to see whether people in fact are held to account for that terrible injustice.
We watched the former government pay $30 million to a Liberal Party donor for land worth $3 million in the airport land scandal. And we saw the Australian National Audit Office have their funding cut as punishment when they did their job and started to uncover some of those scandals. We witnessed the Liberals appointing dozens of Liberal Party colleagues and friends to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Even now we are still uncovering more and more shocking stories of inappropriate use of federal government programs and taxpayer dollars under the Liberals.
No wonder the former government never brought a bill before the parliament to establish an integrity commission despite repeated promises to do so. It would have exposed them and the inconceivable lack of integrity that was on display to all who chose to look. Is it any wonder that Australians are feeling a profound distrust in government and a disappointment in democratic institutions. That is a blight on everybody. Now it is incumbent on this government to try to restore that trust. We've seen repeated research after each election cycle where trust in our system of government and our democratic institutions is now at record lows—plummeting—and that is in nobody's interest.
At the end of the day, Australians need to be able to trust government, to trust that we will always do the right thing. A national integrity commission has been a priority, allegedly for the whole parliament, but it's not until now that we're going to see a bill to try to tackle some of those profound and now entrenched feelings of disquiet amongst the Australian people. It may seem like common sense but, quite simply, we want to close the door on corruption. The time for sweeping things under the carpet is over. The time for ignorance and negligence went out the door, and it should never, ever be allowed to surface again. Labor are in charge now, and we are going to clean this up. Shockingly the Commonwealth is the only Australian jurisdiction without an anti-corruption commission, and I think that says a lot. The bill before the House now to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission is the single biggest reform to the Commonwealth integrity framework in decades.
We have the Attorney-General sitting with us in this debate. I want to acknowledge not just your hard work now but your incredible dedication to pursue this issue of anticorruption and ensure that our national parliament would be in step with all the other jurisdictions around Australia. I want to put on record that thanks and appreciation to you as somebody on our side who has really driven a long process now of consultation, and we do appreciate that.
It's one of the many steps the Albanese Labor Government is taking to return honesty, accountability and integrity to government and to rebuild trust amongst the Australian people. We know that corruption erodes trust and distrust weakens the ability of government to deliver vital funding and reform to improve our country and our communities. The establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission shows that Labor are taking our role in government seriously. We want to be the best we can be, because we want to build a better future for all Australians. That's why this powerful and transparent commission will operate independently of government, and that is so important. The commission will have wideranging powers and responsibilities. It will be able to investigate criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct and investigate ministers, parliamentarians, their staff and statutory officeholders, as well as employees of all government entities and contractors.
Importantly, it will work right across government to prevent corruption from occurring in the first place. Prevention is absolutely where we need to be focused. By all means we've got to address corruption wherever it tries to infect our systems, but let's double down on our efforts to prevent it in the first place. We know that one of the biggest issues in addressing corruption is people having the confidence to speak out about corrupt conduct without fear of retribution, and that's why this legislation will, very importantly, provide strong protections for whistleblowers and exemptions for journalists to protect the identity of their sources. This legislation gives the commission broader powers to educate the public sector about corrupt conduct and how to prevent corruption, as well as educating the wider public about corruption and how to report it to the commission, and that's such an important and very Labor focus, to ensure that we have got an adequate public education program that scaffolds around the work of the Anti-Corruption Commission, because we are trying not just to lift the tone of this parliament and government processes but to engage all Australians in a discussion about how to ensure and protect our systems of government and our institutions.
It will be an Anti-Corruption Commission with teeth. Spending taxpayer dollars should be open and accountable, and appointments to government boards and tribunals must be open and accountable. The federal public sector should be open and accountable. If corrupt behaviour occurs there must be a way to investigate and punish inappropriate behaviours, and this legislation will give the Anti-Corruption Commission powers similar to those of a royal commission. It's vital that we get this right. Corruption does not stop at territory, state or international borders; nor should our efforts to stop it in its tracks. In designing the commission we have reviewed, analysed and utilised the best aspects of state and territory models and we've worked closely with integrity experts. I must say, this is probably the only silver lining to being the only jurisdiction that hasn't had an anticorruption commission, that we're able to take some time to examine what has worked in each of the other jurisdictions. We've drawn on those existing models, with a particular focus on the prevention and education aspects, because, while it's important to investigate corruption, it should never have the opportunity to eventuate in the first place. That's what the aim of a Labor government is.
But that's not all. The establishment of a national anticorruption commissions forms an important part of a broader integrity framework with large reforms, including effective protections for whistleblowers; enhancing the transparency and integrity of political donations, including real-time disclosures; and a merit based and transparent appointments process. We are also considering options to establish a federal judicial commission to reinforce trust in the judicial system. We are committed to the principles of the Open Government Partnership, of which Australia is a member, and we'll develop an action plan to improve the level of open government, transparency and accountability in this country.
We're tracking fraud in the NDIS, and a new Fraud Fusion Taskforce is being established. We've established a new and robust ministerial code of conduct, and we are developing parliamentary standards for all parliamentarians, staff and, indeed, all people who work, visit and engage in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, because we have been found lacking. Nobody in this parliament can deny the fact that we failed in our duty over successive governments to ensure that there were proper levels of accountability and real consequences for failing to provide safe and respectful places to work. That is a focus of this government now, and we'll be having a lot more to say about that in the future.
Australians made very clear that they want a federal parliament that is honest. They want us to be accountable. They want this parliament to be transparent in its operations and its transactions. They want us to restore integrity and confidence in the very heart of our democracy, and that's what this bill does. I couldn't be more proud to stand as a member of the Labor government that is introducing this bill. I sincerely hope that there will be multiparty support. I know there are lots of amendments and lots of negotiations underway, but nobody in this chamber would want to vote against the establishment of a national anticorruption commission. Nobody could go home to their electorates and look anyone in the eye and say, 'We had an opportunity to correct a historical wrong in the Australian parliament, and we failed to stand up and do our duty.' I'm not going home to the people of Newcastle with that message, I can assure you. I don't think anyone in this parliament wants to be telling that story. So I encourage everybody to vote in support of this bill before the House. There is no time to delay. Our Labor government is setting the standard, cleaning up this place and making sure we are a government the Australian people can trust.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (18:18): I am pleased to rise to speak on the National Anti-Corruption Bill 2022 and the related bill. I begin by expressing my support for a national anticorruption commission. I want to discuss, firstly, why corruption is a bad thing and hence why a mechanism to detect and counter it is needed. Secondly, I want to touch on some appropriate factors that need to be balanced. Thirdly, I want to speak of ways to improve the bill through amendments.
Let me start with the proposition that corruption is a bad thing. Corruption corrodes public trust, undermines the public confidence on which our institutions depend and reduces the effectiveness of government because, if officials or politicians are interested in enriching themselves rather than delivering good public policy outcomes, then we have a government which is not doing what it should for citizens. The coalition has always been strongly concerned about the risk of corruption and having appropriate mechanisms to deal with it.
It was a coalition government which legislated Australia's first anticorruption commission—the Greiner government in New South Wales. Our previous Commonwealth government developed a detailed model for a Commonwealth integrity commission in the last parliament. We released an exposure draft, hundreds of pages long. We went through a detailed process of public consultation. As we repeatedly made clear, we stood ready to deliver this legislation the moment that Labor indicated its support.
We'd seen suggestions by the Attorney-General and by the Labor members that in some way the Labor side of politics is a watchword for purity and integrity in public conduct. That's a claim that is simply laughable to anybody with any knowledge of Australian political history. Think of the notorious criminal conduct of former New South Wales Labor members of parliament Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald. Think of the troubling record of criminality on the part of officials of the notorious CFMMEU, one of the Labor Party's major donors—and that record of criminality has frequently been commented on by judges. Think of the conduct of recent Labor members of parliament like Craig Thomson, the former member for Dobell.
Look at the glaring contradiction between Labor's rhetoric on this bill and its abolition of two important integrity institutions in the workplace: the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission. These bodies have done extraordinarily important work in providing oversight of unions, including dealing with the risk of corrupt union officials, and history teaches us that that is not a remote or distant risk at all. These bodies were hated by union officials, who did not like the scrutiny that they were subject to. Labor has wasted no time in dancing to the tune of their paymasters in abolishing those bodies. It is quite extraordinary that the CFMMEU and the ACTU have complained about the same powers in relation to the Australian Building and Construction Commission that the ACTU and the CPSU have supported in relation to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
I turn now to the question of appropriate factors which need to be balanced up in establishing the regime under which a national anticorruption commission will operate. Many of our state anticorruption commissions have extremely wide powers. But, sadly, some of them do not have appropriate procedural safeguards so that innocent people do not become collateral damage. We need to be mindful of the great personal cost incurred by those who are falsely accused of corrupt or fraudulent conduct by such bodies. Sadly, there are too many instances of reputations and livelihoods destroyed, often leading to significant mental trauma and in some cases to suicide.
The presumption of innocence has been part of the golden thread of justice in common-law countries for many centuries for very good reason. This presumption is supported by the rules of evidence and many other procedural safeguards. These important principles should not be lightly sacrificed. We need to appropriately balance the rights of those who are called before the National Anti-Corruption Commission with the objective of effectively identifying instances of corrupt conduct. Many of these matters have been considered by the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation, and they have recommended several amendments to the bill to provide extra procedural safeguards.
The coalition, and quite a number of organisations making submissions, have argued for further safeguards, and in doing so we do not seek to hamper the work of the National Anti-Corruption Commission but to make it more robust and accountable and to ensure that it is a body that is beyond reproach. As the shadow Attorney-General told this House, as he has developed the coalition's position on this bill, he has met not only former commissioners and advocates for this bill but also people whose lives and careers have been ruined by their appearances at one of the state commissions. Indeed, he's met people who have been bereaved by suicide because of the actions of one of the state or territory commissions. These are matters which need to be very carefully weighed up as this parliament considers this bill.
I turn therefore to the question of ways in which this bill may be improved. Issues with this bill have been ventilated through the parliamentary process and through committee processes. The coalition has engaged through this bill in good faith across the parliament. We have engaged with our communities and with stakeholders. Many coalition parliamentarians have engaged with constituents and stakeholders, as I know parliamentarians across all sides of this chamber have. Certainly, I have been approached by constituents, and I've had many constituents advocate strongly for a national anticorruption commission, and, as I've indicated, I support the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
But I've also had constituents share with me troubling instances of experiences at the hands of state anticorruption commissions which could only be described as manifestly unfair. The coalition has had regard to these issues and others and to all of the extensive consultation we've done in developing our careful and considered amendments. I do want to particularly acknowledge the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Berowra. I sit next to him on the front bench, my electorate adjoins his and I've worked closely with him since he came into the parliament. He is doing outstanding work on this bill and on the other elements of his extensive workload, bringing a measured and thoughtful approach to his work.
The parliamentary Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation has tabled an advisory report into the bill. Included within that report are a number of recommendations from coalition participants which go to the theme I've touched on: getting the balance right in this bill. Section 1.191, for example, details our concerns that it would be unfair to apply court-like transparency without court-like rules of evidence. Related to this theme, the committee expressed serious concern with the impact of public hearings on a person's mental health. There is a real risk of suicidal ideation or suicide as a result of appearing before a public hearing whereby one's integrity, identity and person may be tarnished. In section 1.235, coalition participants expressed the view that protections for those appearing before the commission should be increased by requiring the commission to give explicit consideration to a person's wellbeing and to other relevant factors.
A clear area where this bill needs improvement is the inexplicable and unjustifiable special treatment it provides for union officials exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth. The carve-out, in sections 12 and 14 of the bill, for union officials exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth undermines the character of the commission as an integrity commission, and the coalition is very clear that we seek to have that carve-out removed. The government has been very, very cagey about this particular carve-out. There is no explanation for it in the explanatory memorandum. It is a complete mystery. Well, it's not a complete mystery; any rational person can work out very clearly why the Labor Party's done this, but they've made no effort to justify it. When questioned, the Attorney-General's Department could not give a satisfactory answer on the reasons for the exemptions. When he was asked on Insiders about this carve-out, the Attorney-General initially denied it. He then justified it on misleading grounds.
The troubling fact is that Labor has made this provision broad enough so that the commission can call before it anyone who exercises a power under a law of the Commonwealth, except union officials. The Prime Minister was asked in question time about why this carve-out exists for union officials. His initial response was to claim that union officials don't need to be covered by the Anti-Corruption Commission, because they're covered by the Fair Work Ombudsman and Fair Work Commission, and this legislation is about plugging gaps, not duplication. The shadow minister for defence then pointed out that the Australian Defence Force is also covered by other bodies, such as the ADF military code of conduct and the inspector-general, and, taking at face value the justification the Prime Minister had offered, he then, very reasonably, asked, 'Why is the Australian Defence Force included in the National Anti-Corruption Commission but senior union leaders are not?' In view of the rationale proffered by the Prime Minister for the exclusion of senior union officials, which was that they were covered by other bodies and processes—something which is equally true of the Australian Defence Force—there was a complete failure by the government to provide an answer.
The following day in question time, the Prime Minister was asked again about union carve-outs and why union officials are specifically exempted from being subject to the operation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The Prime Minister then changed his line and again tried to deny that this carve-out existed. It's a simple fact. It's in sections 12 and 14 of the bill.
We have the extraordinary situation in which the conduct of Indigenous rangers is subject to the scrutiny of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We on this side of the House certainly do not question or criticise that. But what we do question, what we do criticise—very clearly, very specifically and very pointedly—is if it's appropriate for the conduct of Indigenous rangers to be subject to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, what can be the possible justification for excluding from the scrutiny of the National Anti-Corruption Commission the actions of union officials who are exercising powers granted by a Commonwealth rule? Why is it that a union official will be able to exercise a power under the Work Health and Safety Act or the Fair Work Act to shut down a worksite for alleged safety reasons and not be subject to the scrutiny of the commission if that union official's conduct raises questions as to whether there is corrupt conduct? It is quite extraordinary, inexplicable and indefensible that an Indigenous ranger, in the course of carrying out his or her duties, is subject to the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, that a worker within the National Disability Insurance Scheme is subject to the National Anti-Corruption Commission but the one category of person who is not subject to the National Anti-Corruption Commission is a union official.
What an extraordinary coincidence that the unions have collectively donated tens of millions of dollars to the Australian Labor Party over the last decade or more and that they are being provided with a shield from the scrutiny which, properly and appropriately, ought to apply to union officials exercising a power under Commonwealth legislation. There is scrutiny, which we on this side of the House agree is entirely appropriate, that will be exercised in respect of parliamentarians, in respect of public officials and in respect of a wide range of categories of others who are exercising powers under Commonwealth legislation. It's remarkable that union officials are given a carve out.
The Attorney-General is at the table right now. He's being unusually silent. It's out of character. But he has an opportunity to explain to the Australian people, to explain to the parliament why there is special treatment for union officials. He can explain to the Australian people why there is a carve out for union officials that is not available to any other category of person who is exercising a power of the Commonwealth. That is, in the coalition's view, a question, the answer to which is absolutely obvious. And if the Attorney-General and if the government wish to achieve the confidence that ought to be achieved in this very important body, then what they should be doing is amending the bill or supporting the coalition's amendment which would remove this unjustifiable exemption for union officials.
The coalition supports this bill. I support this bill. Aspects of the process have been very undesirable. We will be moving amendments to seek to improve the bill.
Mr BURNELL (Spence) (18:33): I rise to speak on what I feel are arguably some of the most important pieces of legislation that I have spoken on during my relatively short time here in this, the 47th Parliament. I am, of course, referring to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 alongside the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022.
We all know that this legislation, in one form or another, has been several years in the making. This legislation is of vital importance. The debate surrounding the establishment of such a body has been one that I followed closely long before my election to this place.
It is of vital importance because the National Anti-Corruption Commission gives us, as members of this place—the parliament, the legislature, a pillar of our constitutional democracy in Australia—the best chance we have of restoring public faith and confidence in those institutions and others across the entire Australian government, the Australian Public Service and other key public institutions.
The establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission has been an election commitment of the Australian Labor Party since the lead up to the 2019 election. Now the Albanese Labor government is once again fulfilling these commitments in a concerted fashion. Being a part of an Albanese Labor government that is coming to this place and introducing the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation makes me extremely proud. This is a truly historic moment in the lead up to what I hope will be this parliament coming together to pass these bills and bring some integrity into our system.
I am cautiously optimistic. This cautious optimism stems from the knowledge that, although in this place we may have some differing views on the margins regarding this legislation, we are mostly on a unity ticket on the principle that underpins this legislation. In fact, the constructive nature of this debate in this place so far provides more ammunition for this cautious optimism. It makes you wonder just what we as a parliament can accomplish together when we lead with common goals and find ourselves in lockstep to turn these common goals into tangible outcomes.
This bill has received numerous submissions, many of those from the same people, the same organisations that lamented previous governments' attempt at this, the national integrity commission. But this government listens. Much work was undertaken to get the balance right, as this debate drew even closer, whether it be by the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the Joint Select Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation, which produced an informative report, one that I have keenly paid attention to and I believe this government has done too. These are all very important steps, ones that need not cause undue delay to the process but will help to draw all sides of this parliament towards a model for the commission and an outcome we can all be proud of, one that we can go back to our electorates and to our families with our heads held high.
I mentioned earlier the Labor Party's position on a National Anti-Corruption Commission dating to before the 2019 election. Without looking at events that led up to this in the federal sphere, for a moment it is worth examining the actions of state and territory governments over the years. These commissions go by many varied names and varied means across the country, but all seek the same ends—to investigate and weed out corruption where it is suspected to exist within public institutions. In New South Wales, the Northern Territory and in my home state of South Australia, they are called an Independent Commission Against Corruption, or ICAC, often used as a rallying cry for this debate federal ICAC. Well, we are pretty close to it now. In Queensland, we have the Crime and Corruption Commission. This is mirrored by Western Australia's Corruption and Crime Commission. In Victoria, it is the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC. And lastly, in Tasmania and the ACT, they have their integrity commissions. The first of these bodies to be established was the ICAC in New South Wales back in 1989, and the last of these were the integrity commissions in the ACT and Northern Territory in 2019 and 2018 respectively. Now, in 2022, we still are yet to have one covering the federal government. I can't wait to restate the obvious and outline why.
It may be true that the National Anti-Corruption Commission may not be called what we might be familiar with in our home states, but an ICAC by any other name would smell as sweet. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is no less broad-based, no less independent and no less a safeguard to the integrity that underpins our institutions. Having our democratically elected representatives attempting to protect our democracy is a manifestation of democracy itself. This is especially true when it goes about its core business to eliminate the stench of corruption and impropriety where it sees and suspects it. That stench can be a strong one, whether it be perceived or actual. It is one that lingers if not taken care of swiftly. We owe it to the public to make every effort to have a mechanism to investigate and weed out serious and systemic corruption where it exists, and to deter it from occurring in the first place.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission has aims beyond investigating corruption. Its broader aim includes reducing the likelihood of corruption festering and metastasising unchecked. I am pleased to see that it aims to educate the public sector to better identify suspect behaviours and help to correct certain attitudes in people that might, one day, lead to someone crossing that line of no return, and aims to teach scores of staff across departments, ministerial and electoral offices that, if they see something, they should say something.
Though I have used a fairly conciliatory and fair tone over the course of debate thus far, it would be remiss of me not to provide some much needed context to the House as to why an Albanese Labor government took office with an election commitment to introduce a National Anti-Corruption Commission. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the actions of the previous government or, more astutely, the omissions of the previous government in this space.
The average person over the last couple of years would see the former Liberal-National government go through cycles of action. By action we mean an announcement, statements to the effect of supporting an anti-corruption commission and then radio silence—dead air. This occurred as a pattern. Each instance lasted until someone managed to have the grit and perseverance to force it back onto the agenda. Then there would be another pithy gesture, an exposure draft to nowhere, one reviled by the many eminent organisations and academics that took the time to make a submission in the hope that the benefit of their expertise would be taken into account. They certainly got their hopes up a little too high, considering who was at the helm at the time.
The leading figures in this game of policy hide-and-seek were, of course, the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, and the now former member for Pearce, who at the time was the Attorney. As we know, the member for Cook had the gall to blame the Labor opposition for why the government at the time's bill was not introduced to the House. Of course, they expected everyone in this place to support it without amendments. The former government never introduced legislation if it knew that Labor opposed it. At least by this time nobody was buying it, even from within their own ranks. In the end the exposure draft of the federal integrity commission died of exposure.
If we had to go by the former Prime Minister's statements, he was all for an Anti-Corruption Commission. However, he opted to use the cover of the New South Wales ICAC investigations, which were exactly what the doctor ordered, to undermine what was needed for an Anti-Corruption Commission. But at the start, like I said, he seemed to be eager to get this done. If only the member for Cook was secretly the Attorney-General at the time, he could have pushed this through the chamber personally. But the rest is history. It's now time to look forward.
Now we have a new Attorney-General, one who cares about integrity in government and about fulfilling our election promises to the Australian people. We also have a new member for Pearce, who was elected to this place for the first time alongside the likes of me. I'm sure the new member for Pearce has a much less tolerant view of corrupt conduct and thus I am sure that she will be joining me to support this bill. Now, we are almost there. We will, hopefully, soon have a National Anti-Corruption Commission, one with safeguards yet with teeth that will gnash at those suspected of involvement in serious or systemic corruption but ,to all others and to the public at large, those teeth will look like a broad smile.
Sadly, some people out there, in an attempt to diminish the importance and necessity of the National Anti-Corruption Commission being established, will say that this isn't the typical issue that the average punter cares about. If that's true, that is a glaring indictment of us as an institution. It means that too many out there think that we as an institution are beyond redemption. As a parliament, we need to start passing the pub test again. I can't allow this to be the status quo that I walk into as a member of this place.
From the tone and course of the debate over the past day or so—and one rather late night last night—it was quite comforting to see many of my fellow class of '22 members who sit across all parts of the chamber making active contributions to furthering this debate. There is nothing wrong with wanting to restore some of the shine that has been lost in where you work. Now that I and my classmates have joined this place, we are stepping up and stepping forward to be part of the solution.
Lastly, I do lament somewhat that the National Anti-Corruption Commission is something that has to be introduced and that there are people out there, whether elected as public officials or working within the public sector, who don't exhibit strong values such as the need to have their probity above reproach. But, alas, we must introduce the commission. We know this—or at least most of us here do, in one form or another. I have opted not to repeat the statistics that many others have over the course of the debate, but those numbers need to start moving in another direction. Whether it is Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index or a poll put out in the field by a research firm or a university, perception matters so much. I know I'm addressing a room full of politicians who know this self-evident truth all too well.
So I commend this bill. Lastly, I say that I hope this commission gets the support it deserves so this profession of ours can have a modicum of mobility restored to it. We have all put our hands up to serve. Let's show the people who put us here that we are serious about winning back their trust.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (18:47): I rise to speak in favour of the creation of a National Anti-Corruption Commission, and I've been waiting for the opportunity to do this for some years, ever since entering this place in 2019.
I want to start by pushing back against some claims that speakers have made in this debate and that others have made publicly—this claim that trust in politics in this country has never been lower. This is a kind of attack on Australian democracy and Australian government. It is right to have a National Anti-Corruption Commission, but that's not a concession that the reason we need one is that there's all sorts of rampant corruption occurring. We've had our political challenges in this country over the decades in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia—certainly not in the era we're in right now. I'd be surprised if members of the Labor Party are now suggesting that things are lower than they were on 11 November 1975, which is the Labor Party's great reference point, I would have thought, for apparent low trust in government and our institutions. I doubt that, if we stopped anyone on the street in Tehran, Baghdad, Kabul or Moscow and put to them the proposition, 'I'm here from Australia, and, God, it's never been so bad in Australian politics; it's just horrendous in Australia,' they'd love to hear stories of torture, murder and governments imprisoning their citizens, with no concept or pretence of democracy.
So the suggestion that things are in some diabolical circumstance in our democracy and in our politics is absolute, complete rubbish. I get the need for hyperbole in debates, both in this chamber and in the media, but I'm going to stand up for democracy in this country and for the privilege and honour of serving in the Australian House of Representatives and say that we are not some cesspit of corruption and we do not have deep challenges of trust or confidence in our democracy. Other people around the world literally die seeking to come to a country like this for the things that we dispute and argue about to be the challenges that they've got to face, compared to what they're facing in the regimes that they live under around the world.
It is completely ridiculous to push this suggestion that we've got a crisis in our democracy and that trust in politics has never been lower, because people almost anywhere else, in any other corner of the planet, would absolutely love to live in this democracy. People's jaws would be on the ground at the sorts of examples that are used to suggest there's this complete crisis of confidence. The jealousy of living in this beautiful country is something that we should be proud of. It's pretty appalling that there are people who want to rubbish it in the process of an important debate—one that I suspect is going to end up in unanimity in supporting the creation of this new institution. But I push back against the lunacy and stupidity of some of those comments because they are absolutely ridiculous.
I definitely support having a national integrity body, but I also dispute that we don't have an integrity framework in place at the Commonwealth level. That's incorrect. There are lots of very esteemed bodies and agencies that safeguard the integrity of our systems and undertake investigations into criminal activity, and they do an excellent job. We might find, having created this body, that one of the things it confirms is that we don't have serious, systemic corruption in federal government in this nation. This is probably a good price to pay—although this is an expensive exercise—if it confirms that to all the people who want to claim there's some kind of rabid corruption occurring throughout politics and government at a federal level. If nothing more, the creation of this body will go to show that that's not the case.
It will also go to show that we do have a robust framework in place already. Corruption is a crime, and, if someone is being corrupt, they absolutely can be reported to the Federal Police—if the corruption is of a federal nature—investigated, prosecuted, and potentially sent to jail. That's the other thing that really disappoints me in this debate—the suggestion that we need a corruption commission because at the moment you can get away with corruption. That's complete rubbish. So, in supporting the creation of this body, I think that will be a good outcome to look forward to, because creating a body that doesn't result in significant uncovering of major systemic corruption will, of course, give people confidence that it isn't occurring.
That's happened in my home state of South Australia. We created our ICAC. The legislation passed and the body came into effect around 2013. That's over nine years ago—coming up to 10 years. I believe it's fair to say that that body was initially given spectacular and extraordinary powers and was very well resourced, and it has had effectively no significant successful prosecution whatsoever. In fact, and regrettably, it has become an institution of embarrassment bordering on scandal. We have an awful situation at the moment in South Australia where a prosecution has been abandoned because of very poor conduct from the ICAC in withholding pertinent evidence from a trial. The public servant involved has had the charges against him dropped. His life for the last few years has been ruined, and I think there will be very serious repercussions for the South Australian ICAC as an investigation brings the reality of what happened there to light.
Regrettably, this is also the case in the Northern Territory. We see some very poor examples of practices of the Northern Territory ICAC. And, of course, once these ICACs—or the NACC as we'll have at a federal level—lose credibility through poor conduct and poor behaviour then it is very difficult to get that back. That's a regrettable example that I hope the NACC sees as a very important watchword for them to be very wary of the need for a robust system of integrity within their own organisation and the need to act with a great deal of responsibility with the powers that they are being given.
Let's make no mistake, the powers of this entity, like other entities, are very significant. As the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, they are not bound by some of the appropriate mechanisms that are in place in our criminal justice system. There are very important principles in defending oneself in the criminal justice system, like the right to silence. Some of the coercive powers that are provided to these agencies, not just the NACC but other agencies have them as well, are a reminder of how important it is for us to be extremely vigilant as a parliament in making sure that those powers are handed over because they are necessary and that very significant monitoring of the exercise of those powers is in place.
There have been some important points made in the course of this debate. There have been elements of amendments that have been foreshadowed both by the opposition and other people in this place, and the other place, around that, because we want to make sure that this body that we are creating is doing what it is meant to do and not doing what it is not meant to do. Regrettably, a lot of these bodies at the state and territory level are more infamous for doing what they're not meant to be doing than what they are meant to be doing. But we have an open mind and hope that the NACC indeed fulfills the objectives that we, as legislators, are putting in place in creating this agency through these bills.
I am also very nervous about the importance of all of us defending the fundamentals of parliamentary privilege. We are going to have to do this as a parliament. It is not a matter for the government. It is the matter for parliament. We know the very ancient origins of parliamentary privilege. We know that we also have a statute from the 1980s that further qualifies that privilege, and we know through House Practice how that operates. There is an extreme risk—and there are examples in the state jurisdictions of these bodies not having an appropriate respect for parliamentary privilege. It's going to be vitally important for presiding officers now and into the future to ensure that we as a parliament, this chamber and the Senate, are standing up for those very important rights. Nobody, including a NACC, should have the ability to intimidate legislators, members of this place or the Senate, in any way in us undertaking our vital responsibilities as parliamentarians. The privilege that we are given, which is very appropriately called privilege, is one that we as a chamber are sovereign over. It is absolutely vital that this body, like any other body, never ever encroaches upon the very important protections that we have as parliamentarians and there is a risk of that. We have seen it happen in other jurisdictions. I will be part of being very vigilant around that as deputy chair of the privileges and members' interests committee. I'm sure all of us as parliamentarians share the very important, vital need to safeguard privilege and ensure that this body, and any other body that has all kinds of powers, never uses those powers in breach of that privilege.
I want to close by disputing some attacks on our democracy and some claims by some contributors in this debate that the decisions we make as members of parliament, as governments and alternative governments, need some kind of accountant's process put over them, and that we as community leaders and representatives should have some kind of restraint or filter, by some mathematical process, around the commitments that we make in election campaigns, the ideas that we advance and the things that we say that we will do if we are elected when we are campaigning for election to this place. I get the political points, and people can talk about the things that previous governments have done that they don't like. That's something called democracy. As Winston Churchill said: 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government that's ever been conceived.' There are elements of democracy that those of us who participate in it don't necessarily like at times, but we also accept that we do want to live in a democracy. It is absolutely the reality that if you want democracy, you have democracy holus bolus.
It would be outrageous if this body ever thought they could interfere in appropriate decisions that this chamber, and any government formed in this chamber, decides to make. In an election campaign, if I want to announce that a Liberal government will build a monorail from the south to the north of my electorate, and the people of my electorate re-elect me, and they elect a majority of other members of parliament who form a government that had that policy of that monorail, then—whether or not it is a sensible idea in the eyes of an accountant or any other process—that might happen.
At the end of the day, in a democracy we get to make commitments, take them to the people and put a platform forward, and the people decide if they want to vote for that or not. We would not be a democracy if we said that decisions that are made through the democratic process have got another hurdle that they have to clear, which is justification to some kind of non-elected entity as to why we've made commitments to the people that we represent, and then they, as participants in our democracy, like the ideas that we've got and vote for them.
The examples used in this debate are around decisions of governments that people don't like. That is the reality of living in a democracy. I don't like most of the things that those opposite take to elections. It depresses me when they win an election—one in every five or six—and get to come in and implement those crazy ideas that I don't support, but that is their right by virtue of being democratically elected to form a government. I really don't like it when they do things they didn't tell the people about in an election campaign, but the reality is: if they form a majority in this chamber, they get to do the things that governments get to do. I will absolutely resist any suggestion that we need some kind of undemocratic restriction on the exercise of democracy in this country. With those comments, I commend this bill to the House.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Government Whip) (19:02): I rise to make my contribution on the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022. Labor took a set of bold and wide-ranging ideas that for most of a decade were put into the too-hard basket to this year's election. We have systematically and properly been preparing legislation to meet our commitments to the Australian people, and the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is one of these. The idea was a policy platform that the previous coalition government promised in 2018 and did not deliver.
Around the world, political disengagement is at an all-time high. Here in Australia, enrolled voter turnout in the last decade has gone from 93.23 per cent in 2013 to 89.25 per cent this year. In today's enrolment numbers, that equates to a drop of around 685,000 voters. In total, 1.8 million enrolled voters decided not to vote this year. While not all these people are disengaged, clearly many are.
Australians have corruption fatigue. A paper published by the Australia Institute in 2018 asserted that political corruption costs around five per cent of GDP worldwide. In Australia, it's estimated to cost four per cent, or $53.2 billion, a year. This is an issue that's only getting worse without proper oversight and accountability. The corruption perceptions index, or CPI, has shown that since 2012 Australia has declined in terms of corruption levels. Ten years ago we had a score of 85 out of 100, and now it's 73 out of 100. To put that in perspective, we've gone from a score that would see us rank equal fourth best in the world to a ranking of 18th. That's lower than the UK, Germany, Canada or New Zealand. Aussies are sick of seeing people with power or influence use their status to funnel public moneys in a manner that suits them or their party political future. There is an essential central need for an anticorruption commission to call out these acts and restore faith in politics. If those that are in these positions of status and power fail to be held to account for their actions, then what results is just a mirage of the image we call democracy. Eventually, if nothing changes, this mirage will no longer resemble a democracy; it will start to reflect the image of something else.
While it's important to note that Australia has not descended to anything that resembles other regimes around the world, the very notion that our society moving by any measure in that direction is, I think, worrying and alarming. This is something that our state governments understand, having well-established anticorruption commissions of their own, and it's a system that has served us very well, particularly in New South Wales. There have been countless cases where individuals and organisations have been brought to justice, on both sides of the political divide, when they otherwise wouldn't have without the corruption commission and the hearings that came from it. We've learnt from them, drawing on the best elements of each state and territory anticorruption commission.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians, their staff, statutory officeholders, government contractors and all government employees. Labor has worked extensively with legal and integrity experts to ensure that the commission is designed to adequately investigate and uncover corruption. That includes a breach of trust, misuse of information, abuse of office or adversely affecting the honest and impartial exercise of the function of Commonwealth public officials. And its powers will be retrospective. Whether corruption occurred before or after the commission's establishment, it will have the jurisdiction to pursue and investigate.
The definition of corruption will be consistent with the existing state and territory definitions, as well as the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Integrity Commission Act 2006. The National Anti-Corruption Commission will be allowed to operate with independence and will be resourced to investigate serious and systemic corruption. Independence is crucial to ensure that Australians can trust that the commission is acting in the best interests of the country.
This legislation will ensure the commission can conduct investigations on its own initiative and that the commissioner will serve a single five-year term, with deputy commissioners allowed up to two terms. Both appointments will have tenure comparable to a federal judge. The independence of the commissioners and the deputy commissioners is important to ensure the institution itself remains impartial and independent.
A key principle of the commission will be transparency to ensure trust and accountability in this process. That's why there will be oversight by the joint parliamentary committee to review the commission's performance as well as appoint the commissioners and deputy commissioners. The commission will be subject to reporting requirements at the conclusion of an investigation and must prepare a report with its findings and recommendations. Those investigations that are held in the public domain and have public hearings will have their reports tabled in each house of this parliament. The commission will be proactive with corruption, prevention and education functions. It will have the power to educate and provide information to the public sector and conduct public inquiries to examine vulnerabilities.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission will be transparent, independent and have a broad jurisdiction in what and who it investigates. The legislation before the House strikes the right balance, creating a strong anticorruption commission while also ensuring there is procedural fairness and safeguards. There will be broader safeguards for journalists and their sources, with additional protections that will ensure that investigations do not cause unnecessary damage to the wellbeing or reputation of a person. Those subjected to investigations will be notified of the outcome whilst those subject to adverse findings will be able to seek a review. The Australian people voted for a commission that adheres to those principles, and that is what is being delivered with this legislation. We will have the commission up and running by mid-2023, so we can start investigations as soon as possible and provide the education that is needed.
The Labor Party, when someone is found to be corrupt, are happy to deal with it appropriately. We don't make excuses for them, cover up for them or defend them. We oust them from the party. It's time the entire political system worked in the same way. It's important that transparency is at the centre of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and that the commission can make public findings of corruption when in the public interest. The Australian people deserve to know when corruption has occurred. This legislation will put integrity back in politics and restore faith in our political system to the Australian public. This bill is another election promise delivered by our government for the Australian people, and I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): I thank the honourable member for Werriwa. The question now is that the amendments be disagreed to, and I call the honourable member for Herbert.
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (19:10): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to acknowledge you in this place and your support for an anticorruption commission and of course the member for Moncrieff and her support for an anticorruption commission, and everyone in this place who's contributed today.
We do support a National Anti-Corruption Commission, but we will be proposing amendments to ensure that it is done right. We support integrity in politics. We've been supporting it for a long time, and we supported it well before the election. There's no hiding the fact that integrity and the establishment of a national body to weed out bad behaviour became an election issue. In fact, we heard about it quite frequently throughout the election campaign, and it became quite political. It's now a long time since then, and a lot has happened. And here, today, we have a bill in front of us. We support an anticorruption commission, but we have serious concerns about the form it takes in this bill. While we need a powerful body that is strong enough to not only punish bad behaviour but also act as a deterrent to those who are tempted to do wrong, we must make sure those powers don't go too far.
That's where the concern lies. We need to take serious care to get it right, because these are extraordinary powers that we're talking about giving to the commission. I have a number of significant concerns about this bill. They include the fact that an extremely broad range of Australians come under it, not only parliamentarians and not just public servants but also the AFP, the NDIS, aged-care workers and even people who simply contract to the government. But most concerning for me is the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Yet union officials, despite exercising power under a law of the Commonwealth, aren't covered. Another concern is the mental health implications of those who are subject to gag orders or public hearings. This could have significant ongoing impacts on people's lives and be detrimental to their overall wellbeing. We also have concerns about who decides whether hearings should go public—public hearings are important, but they must be in exceptional circumstances—and that a decision should be made by a higher power than the commissioner.
I want to firstly address who will come under the commission, as many others on this side of the House have also done today and yesterday. As I've said, it's not just us here in this building or ministers who approve grants or the public servants who work throughout the country. It's also the Australian Federal Police, the NDIS and aged-care workers. It's any contractor or subcontractor or person exercising a power under law of the Commonwealth. And it's members of the Australian Defence Force. Looking at the bill, particularly clause 8, we find the definition of 'corrupt conduct', and we see that there are those who are covered by it. Essentially it is any conduct of any person, whether or not a public official, that adversely affects or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise or performance of any public official's powers, functions or duties. This definition extends to the conduct of people outside the Commonwealth parliament and the public sector.
As a former member of the Australian Defence Force and as the shadow assistant minister for defence, I want to reflect on the implications of this. On the face of it, the wording is fine. The exercise and performance of public officials' powers, functions and duties should be honest and impartial. That is what the NACC is all about and, yes, absolutely the Australian Defence Force members are public officials and, yes, we need our ADF to act with integrity and honesty and, in my view, almost all of them do. So we should have a means by which concerns and allegations can be investigated and people who do bad things are held to account. But my concern is what are going to be the practical implications of the NACC going around and investigating members of the ADF or the AFP, for that matter? The ADF has a difficult task doing its main job, which is to fight and win our wars. They need to be fully devoted to the task. They need to be undistracted. How much time will ADF members have to spend responding to and participating in investigations of the NACC? How many will have to think hard about whether the evidence they give endangers national security? If the complaints are genuine, I have absolutely no problem with that. All public officials should co-operate. But the fact is, with these anticorruption bodies, there's a lot of time spent on these matters, there are vexatious complaints, there are allegations for which there is not enough evidence and there is already a body in the Australian Defence Force, the tribunal, that looks at all allegations throughout the Australian Defence Force. This is duplicating something it said it would not duplicate.
In New South Wales, in the 2019-2020 financial year, the ICAC received 2,416 complaints. It started 14 investigations, and six people ended up being prosecuted. If we see the same sorts of rates with this body, with all sorts of people covered by definition, that is a lot of lost productivity and a lot of distraction from key tasks for our taxpayer funded public servants and officials.
I understand not every investigation results in prosecution; it's not possible. You need to run an investigation to gather evidence to mount a case, but the hypocrisy in all of this is that Labor's mates, the union officials, once again will get a free pass through this legislation. We have seen it in the IR bill getting rid of the militant union-busting Australian Building and Construction Commission and we're seeing it with the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Unions can be some of the most corrupt organisations in this country—not all, but some definitely are. Even if they are acting under the provisions of Commonwealth law, they are not covered by the NACC. In fact, they are not just not covered; they are specifically excluded. It is there in black and white at item 2 of the table within subclause 12-3, which specifically excludes an official of a registered industrial organisation from the class of people the bill applies to. How can it be that union officials wouldn't have to answer to the NACC, but soldiers, as the 3rd Brigade in Townsville, would? Once again, we have a government that talks a big game on integrity but shamelessly looks the other way when it comes to doing special deals with their mates and the unions. That's why we on this side of the House will put forward amendments to close this loop the government has inserted for its union mates.
As the shadow Attorney-General outlined in his second reading speech, the implications of gag orders on the mental health of those involved in public hearings could be very significant and concerning. There is nothing more important than life. That means we must always be on our guard against decisions we make in this place that could adversely affect people's health and wellbeing, particularly when it comes to someone's mental health.
As many in this place would be aware, I've had my own battles with mental illness. While they were a result of my service, people who have been involved in an ICAC style hearing in the state system have suffered severe health implications. A gag order which prevents someone from speaking to their psychologist or psychiatrist about an ongoing investigation that is a huge part of their life at the moment is not going to be a good thing for that person's wellbeing. Anyone with any experience in mental health will know that bottling things up and not being able to share them with other people can have serious repercussions.
When we have situations where many investigations do not lead to convictions, as I mentioned with those statistics before, we have a potential for cases where people who are being investigated but are actually innocent are still punished in the form of mental ill-health. They suffer as a result. This is something the Australian Psychological Society felt so concerned about that they made a submission to the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. In that submission they said the following:
One's reputation is fundamental to their status, and social disqualification or damage/loss of that reputation can therefore be devastating. Shame and reputational damage can be incredibly harmful, with victims at risk of serious and life-threatening mental health conditions. Individuals who experience public humiliation and shame can suffer major depressions, suicidality, extreme rage, severe anxiety and even psychosis. These effects can continue over the long term and even for the remainder of that person's life.
These are real risks for anyone who is unnecessarily dragged through a public hearing or investigation, or is subject to a gag order. While we might think that's a situational finding of actual corrupt conduct, that these things are just desserts for bad behaviour, when there comes the potential for someone to die by suicide we must have measures in place to reduce those at risk.
The Psychological Society also submitted to the committee:
Regard for the mental health and welfare of participants during public hearings should be informed by psychological best practice, such as trauma debriefing, particularly when a high level of media interest is expected.
Given the potential for psychological consequences, the APS recommends that appropriate measures be taken to protect the reputation of participants in such hearings, particularly those who may unexpectedly find themselves caught up in an investigation by virtue of their employment with or for individual or organisation being investigated.
That's so important. It's a very important point. There are likely to be a lot of innocent people caught up in investigations who might only be a witness, who are not corrupt or suspected of being corrupt themselves. This is why I would like to see the committee's recommendation adopted for a carve-out for gag orders for medical professionals and psychologists. It should also include family members unless they are also the subject of an investigation. For public hearings, the right support networks must be made available to those who are called to give evidence.
Finally, we need strict measures in place to determine whether an investigation must proceed to a public hearing. The bill mentions the 'exceptional circumstances' test. It's a good thing. Public hearings should be the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, the decision as to whether an investigation proceeds to a public hearing should not lie with the commissioner alone; the opposition believes this power should be exercised by an independent external party who was not involved in the investigation. This must be an independent judicial officer who can look without prejudice at all the circumstances and determine whether the 'exceptional circumstances' test has been met on the basis of that information.
The Law Council of Australia noted in its submission to the inquiry:
The Law Council maintains its position that hearings should generally be conducted in private, unless the Commissioner considers that a closed hearing would be unfair to the person or contrary to the public interest. This draws upon the approach under the Queensland Act. The Law Council understands that public hearings in Queensland are rare, with zero conducted from 2009 to 2017, and three public investigations conducted since then.
… … …
… it's worth keeping in mind that the NACC is neither a court, nor is a prosecutorial body.
Plenty of concerns have been raised about this bill and throughout this time. We must protect those who are protecting us. I do not think that the Australian Defence Force should be included in this. There are already measures in place. Our brave men and women have a job to do. We need to protect them and we need to protect the mental health of Australians and of those who may be caught up in this bill.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith—Assistant Minister for Defence, Assistant Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Assistant Minister for the Republic) (19:25): The Australian people's faith in politicians and our parliament is at one of its lowest points. The Australian National University do a study called the Australian Election Study after every election cycle. In 2019, they found that satisfaction with democracy in Australia was at its lowest point since the 1970s constitutional crisis. The survey found that just 59 per cent of Australians were satisfied with how our democracy is working, and that figure had fallen 27 per cent since 1987. Australians have lost faith with politics and political leaders in this country—and is it any wonder? Under the previous government, there was a series of scandals and rorts that involved the use of taxpayers' dollars: sports rorts, car park rorts, regional development funds. We had a regional development fund that provided funding for the North Sydney pool upgrade. Now, in anyone's book, North Sydney ain't too regional at all, yet the previous government managed to find a way to give funding to the North Sydney Council to upgrade their pool.
Australians have had enough, and that's why, at the last election, they voted for change. They supported Labor's policy to establish a strong and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. The National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 delivers on that commitment. It will establish a strong Anti-Corruption Commission with the powers to investigate and prosecute serious and systemic corruption. It will be independent from government. It will have the necessary powers to investigate alleged corruption by politicians and public officials, and those that engage with them. It will have the power to compel people to give evidence and to produce documents and materials relevant to its investigations. Importantly, it will have the power to conduct hearings in public so that the public can know what's going on, when and if it is in the public interest to do so.
Proposed amendments to the bill deliver on the recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. It represents the government listening to the people of Australia and the submissions that they made, and the recommendations of that joint committee. These amendments will broaden the safeguards for the protection of journalists in relation to search warrants and extend protections for their sources. They will improve safeguards for the wellbeing of persons who may require assistance to comply with a summons or notice to produce and expressly permit people to disclose information to a medical professional. They will require the commissioner to advise a person whose conduct has been investigated of the outcome of the investigation. They will amend the definition of corrupt conduct to clarify that the commissioner may deal with a corruption issue on their own initiative; require surveillance and interception warrants to be issued by eligible judges of a federal superior court; enhance the power of the National Anti-Corruption Commission inspector regarding witness summonses and arrest warrants; and narrow the grounds for bringing contempt proceedings.
This represents the Albanese government delivering an election commitment but acting on the constructive engagement from stakeholders and parliamentarians. It really represents the government listening to the Australian people, who said at the last election that they wanted a powerful anticorruption commission able to investigate allegations of corruption at a federal level. We've had them at the state level. The previous government avoided it, delayed it. This represents the Albanese government finally delivering a national anticorruption commission for Australia.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr Buchholz: I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Moffatt, Mr Don, AM
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (19:30): Last Thursday evening I had the great pleasure of attending a wonderful event in the hangar of LifeFlight at the Sunshine Coast Airport—that wonderful organisation. We heard the news that Jocelyn Walker, a giant of the Sunshine Coast, has become a patron of the organisation. I stand today, though, to talk about someone else who was referred to at that event.
When Rob Borbidge, the chair of LifeFlight took the stage, he looked across the hangar and made comment that one of the rescue helicopters was not in the hangar for people to look at that evening, and he was of course referring to the helicopter which has the name the Don Moffatt. Don Moffatt passed away on 11 August this year, and he was very close to Rob Borbidge, as he was to pretty much everyone in that room on Thursday night. The way Rob said it was wonderful. He noted that the Don Moffatt helicopter was not in the hangar, and in doing so he said something along the lines, 'The Don Moffatt's not in the hangar, but it's out there somewhere, no doubt rescuing people.' As I stood there my heart stopped, remembering that man, Don Moffatt, and I was able to give a gentle elbow nudge of acknowledgement to Karyn Moffatt, Don's daughter, who was standing next to me. Don Moffatt not only chaired LifeFlight; he was also the recipient of a Member of the Order of Australia for his service to the helicopter rescue service as well as the racing industry in Queensland.
I was enormously fortunate to forge a very good personal friendship with Don Moffatt. Don, for me, was a quintessential Australian mate. He would be the first to take the mickey out of you; but, I tell you what, if you ever needed a hand, Don was there. Don was as hard as nails—God, he was tough! But he was also the most gentle, soft fellow. He would fight to the end. He was as loyal as. He was a veteran. He served in Vietnam, and then he later taught, again using his aviation skills. The love that Don had for our region was quite something, and he served beyond his success in property. He served as chair of a unit trust. He served as chair of what's now referred to as Visit Sunshine Coast. But it was his capacity to love and to be a mate, and especially the love he had for his family, and my heart still goes out to Bridget, his wife; to Jodie and Karyn; and to Don's two grandchildren, Ulee and Scarlett, who miss him dearly, because they know that Don was always there. He was larger than life.
Don was a Liberal National Party member, and he rang me the night just before my first preselection in 2013. He'd already told me he was going to give me his support. I answered the phone and Moffatt said, 'O'Brien, I just looked at your CV again. You went to Nudgee College. Are you a Catholic?' I said, 'I am, Don.' True to form, he said, 'Well, I'm not going to vote for a damn Catholic,' and hung up the phone. I didn't know the guy that well, so of course I rang him back and said, 'Hey, Don, do we need to chat about this?' He said in that drawl that I came to know so well, 'Mate, just joking.' Don was there. Don was always there.
Our region of the Sunshine Coast is built on the shoulders of the likes of Don Moffatt. The current generation, and even we who are privileged to be in some form of leadership position, are there because we are on their shoulders. As much as Don Moffatt has passed and left this world, I say to Bridget, to Jodie and to Karyn: he is with us. He always will be. We miss him and we love him.
Acid Attacks
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (19:35): Last night, a largely packed parliamentary theatre played host to a screening of the multi-award-winning Australian documentary Geeta, a raw and honest film about a mother's heartfelt attempt to change her daughter's destiny after a brutal acid attack. With this year's UN 16 Days calling on people to unite in activism to end violence against women and girls, the screening of Geeta in Parliament Housepresented an opportunity to explore a number of inspiring approaches for creating change.
The prevalence of acid attacks and the harm caused by them were also discussed this morning by the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, in a public hearing for the inquiry into the rights of women and children. The filmmakers—including the subjects of the film, Geeta and her daughter Neetu—provided an insight into the lives of survivors and their campaign to prevent acid attacks. It was an opportunity for the subcommittee to understand what drives this behaviour and what options are open in legislation to prevent acid attacks. I want to thank the team for their important contribution to the inquiry and to this parliament.
The story of Geeta and Neetu exemplifies the challenges and complexities involved in addressing gender based violence. Acid attacks are a particularly horrific form of harm facing women and children today and have long-term implications for women's health, safety and engagement in their communities. Acid violence is a worldwide phenomenon that is not restricted to any race, religion or geographical location. Globally, there are approximately 1,500 acid attacks a year, but it is a crime that often goes unreported for fear of reprisal. Eighty per cent of the attacks are directed towards women. The victims of acid violence are usually women and children, and attackers often target the head and face to maim, disfigure and blind. The impact of acid violence ranges from serious lifelong injuries and disfigurement to death. Acid survivors need long-term access to a holistic program of medical support, rehabilitation and advocacy, with many survivors requiring up to 80 operations in their lifetime.
It is a crime which, unfortunately, also finds its place here in Australia. In Australia acid attacks happen, but there is a complete absence of formal data despite media coverage of the incidents. In 2022 alone, there have been three acid violence attacks in Sydney and Adelaide. Between 2009 and 2022, there have been 21 known cases of acid attacks. Approximately 30 per cent of acid attacks in Australia are family violence related. They are predominantly targeted against women and children. Threats to disfigure and burn either by acid violence or by setting alight are commonly used in a family violence setting in Australia as a form of coercive control, intimidation and emotional abuse. We cannot sit by and report on statistics and prevalence after-the-fact. We need to proactively understand the risk factors involved as a form of prevention.
As part of the action for change, there are a number of things we can do here in Australia to support the social impact campaign. Research and funding is urgently needed to collect data on both attacks and threats to disfigure or burn with acid. Research is also needed to identify where there are gaps in data which could assist in our understanding of the prevalence of incidents of acid violence and threats here in Australia. These include improving record keeping within hospital, police and coroner's reports and within the MARAM family violence system; introducing and strengthening legislation; understanding the motives behind acid attacks and how they relate to other serious crimes; analysing how to reduce access to acid and other corrosive substances; and discovering approaches to best support those whose lives have been affected by acid attacks.
Data collection is important to addressing this issue because it allows policymakers, government bodies and community organisations to understand the need for potential law reform. This includes exploring areas such as a new classification of crime, the poisons act, updating sentencing recommendations and ensuring Australia fulfils its obligations under UN conventions and treaties. Building an Australia-wide host-a-screening campaign and education program for schools, community groups, workplaces and government bodies around family violence and respectful relationships will also play an important role. To my colleagues here: the campaign will work to ensure that the Australian parliament commits in practice to the UN obligations and responsibilities that Australia has signed up to, including UNiTE and CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This Friday marks International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. We can and must do more.
Mental Health
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (19:40): I rise to speak about mental health in Australia. As shadow assistant minister for mental health and suicide prevention I have worked, since coming into this role, to maintain a constructive working relationship with the government that's focused on lessening suffering and advocating sensible policy reforms.
All of us will know someone who is experiencing depression or mental illness. Many of us will know someone who, unfortunately, and very sadly, has committed suicide. Some of us will know someone in our professional circles who has, tragically, taken their own life. I acknowledge the mental health professionals who work to deal with and work so passionately on mental health issues throughout our nation. I express my thanks and gratitude for the work they do and for the support they provide to our communities. I am so pleased that you are there on the front line, through the pandemic and through the disasters that our country has faced, to support the mental health of Australians.
I commend their work to provide a link between mental health services and schools to facilitate early recognition of and intervention in depression and related disorders amongst young people. Whilst engaging with mental health and suicide prevention stakeholders, I've been quite troubled by the struggles that young Australians are facing today. The National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing discovered that almost two in five people aged 16 to 24 had a 12-month mental health disorder. I would be encouraged to see an expanded role for organisations such as Head to Health—a rollout of kids' centres across the country—and of course headspace to better meet this missing middle that we are seeing right now.
I understand that suicide rates are often highest two to three years after a crisis, pandemic or natural disaster, and many communities across our country are now coming to terms with the conditions they have faced.
I am pleased also as deputy chair of the health committee, alongside Dr Freelander, on the other side of this place, that it will be conducting an inquiry, the very first of its kind in Australia, on the impacts of long COVID and repeat COVID infections. It's my hope that through this inquiry we are able to gain a better understanding of the impact of COVID on mental health in order to better meet need and to futureproof our health system.
There are high levels of distress across our communities in Australia, including my own community of Lindsay. Now is a significant time for mental health, and it's important that we take a direction forward that not only saves more lives but improves the quality of life for Australians.
To sincerely address mental health issues, I am of the view that we need to be focused on the causes, the social factors of mental health issues themselves. This involves full attention in every aspect of government decision-making within the full breadth of the portfolios available. My focus is to ensure that this happens, and I will not hesitate to make representations, as I have done, to Assistant Minister McBride and to Minister Butler to ensure they deliver on mental health outcomes and prioritise suicide prevention. We must ensure every government decision makes a positive contribution to the mental health of Australians and prevents mental health issues being exacerbated. I have now seen both coalition and Labor governments include mental health and suicide prevention in their ministries. Bipartisan, ongoing support is essential to drive real and meaningful change.
While there has been encouraging progress—and I would like to acknowledge Minister Hunt for his work in the mental health space, as well as Prime Minister Morrison—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): Order! This is the second time. On the first occasion when referring to colleagues in the House the member for Macarthur was mentioned. Could you refer to them by their seats? I think Mr Hunt we could do as he's a former member now. Thank you.
Mrs McINTOSH: Sure. While there has been encouraging progress over the last couple of years, of which we can be proud, there is still a lot of work to be done. We can't ignore the challenges that we face as a nation when it comes to mental health. Albeit from opposition, my clear focus is to accelerate progress and encourage the government to deliver national structural and much needed policy reform at a time when our country needs it most.
Environmental Conservation
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (19:45): I want to acknowledge the efforts of community groups right across my electorate who are engaged in the vital cause of environmental protection and restoration. There is no question about the great value of that work. Our environment has suffered very considerable impact from us, one way or another, through loss of habitat, invasive species and now from climate change. While of course urbanisation or human habitation is one form of that impact, it's a mistake to think that urban environments are without very significant environmental value and it's a mistake to think that our towns, cities and suburbs don't need restorative work. In fact, half of all threatened species in Australia have some presence in our towns and cities. And there is a lot that we can do to improve local environmental conditions.
There is no doubt in my experience that the broader community, especially young people, have a strong desire to see more effective environmental protection. There is a great willingness to be directly involved in that work. It's not a burden to spend time in local restoration projects to help with coastal clean-ups—to be part of tree planting, or the weeding of invasive species out of native vegetation, or the care of injured native wildlife. It's not a burden; it's a labour of love. It's productive of good health, both physically and mentally. It's almost always a form of social engagement and social inclusion. And it's a collective expression of stewardship and belonging.
To the extent that this movement is growing in scale and energy, it shows a long-belated getting of wisdom about our proper, sustainable place in the world that, of course, First Nations Australians have known and practiced forever. That is one of the reasons this government is doubling the number of Commonwealth funded Indigenous rangers. It's one of the reasons we are committed to advancing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including a First Nations voice to parliament because we have missed that voice and that knowledge for too long.
In recent months, like many members of this place, I've had the privilege of attending a series of events to mark tree planting projects made possible through the Queen's jubilee program. In total this involves 10 separate projects and thousands of tube stock saplings and semi-mature native trees right across the Fremantle electorate.
The weekend before last I was with members of the Cockburn Community Wildlife Corridor group to see the consolidation of the tuart and banksia woodland at Manning Park and Clontarf hill. And a few weeks before that I was with Friends of Hollis Park to see the latest instalment of their amazing efforts to revegetate a degraded but beautiful area of coastal scrub with more than 3,500 seedlings over the course of two winters. In between I was at Rottnest Island to see a planting of the endemic Rottnest Island pine and tea tree. And most recently I visited the Coogee Community Garden, which has become an incredible plant haven in a very short space of time. It has been supported with 150 trees suitable to the Spearwood and Quindalup dune ecosystems.
Two local schools, Beaconsfield primary and Hilton primary, have planted nearly 100 saplings between them, including Western Australian peppermint trees, casuarinas, tea trees and jarrah.
While these tree planting projects each represent a valuable contribution to increasing native habitat and canopy cover, I do want to note the way in which a number of the Queen's jubilee projects are consonant with a larger effort to create a green corridor from the Beeliar Wetlands to the Cockburn Fremantle coast. This includes the Walliabup Native Food Forest Project that is planting 30 quandong and 15 coojong trees, and the Cockburn Wetlands Education Centre with its planting of 2,000 tube stock marri, jarrah and she-oak—all of which are habitat for the endangered red-tailed black-cockatoo and the endangered Carnaby's cockatoo.
Of course, I mentioned earlier the Cockburn community wildlife corridor. I want to wholeheartedly commend all members of that group for their work to achieve a biodiversity link that would exemplify the City of Cockburn's motto 'from wetlands to waves.' One of the brilliant legacies of the massive community effort over the summer of 2016-17 to defeat the ridiculous Perth Freight Link is the opportunity now to shape the future of the so-called Roe 9 corridor. I agree with broad community sentiment that it's a special opportunity, but planning for the corridor should be done carefully. I am personally heartened by the way the McGowan Labor government has moved to protect the Beeliar Wetlands and take a range of actions on the sustainable housing diversity, active transport and community infrastructure front.
I'm looking forward to working with community members, state colleagues, the City of Cockburn, local schools, the Cockburn Basketball Association and others to realise the great potential in that corridor. It's a once in several generations opportunity to ensure that this special area creates a vibrant, active transport corridor. (Time expired)
Cybersecurity
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Opposition Whip) (19:50): We've all seen the high-profile cybertheft stories regarding Optus and Medicare, and unfortunately that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm receiving increasing reports from people who've been scammed—losses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, people losing their life savings. And recently I was contacted by a service business which uses a lot of heavy equipment. Within their company structure, they have a designated company, a separate company, to manage their purchases and sales, and they have had the identity of that company stolen. Consequently, a criminal has been selling non-existent machinery to online customers, and when the item does not arrive the victims are tracing the links back to the parent company, which until very recently was completely unaware that anyone had even stolen their identity. You can imagine how stressful this has been for them.
People would think that this should not happen to them. The scams are sophisticated and completely believable. Many of us have more passwords than we could commit to memory, so we have a little list somewhere. I recently heard a terrific presentation on these matters at an Adelaide Plains business breakfast and was convinced to install a password manager on my phone. It's not so hard. It just takes a little time transferring information, but nothing like the time and stress that accompanies a theft of the list, either hard copy or cyber.
Every eight minutes a cyberattack is reported in Australia, a 13 per cent increase on prepandemic levels, and Australians lost more than $2 billion to scams in 2021. Scammers are the most opportunistic of all criminals. They pose as charities after a natural disaster, health departments during a pandemic and love interests every day. If you detect a scam, regardless of whether you have lost money or not, please, for others' sake, report it. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner runs Scamwatch.gov.au, and it is a good site. People can also subscribe to Scamwatch radar alerts to keep up to date with advice for avoiding the latest scams affecting the community.
Sadly, I can also report on a mid-north farming business that was scammed out of $270,000 in one day. The business was contacted by phone by people claiming to be the Australian Tax Office—a very slick operation. They convinced the farm principal that their accounts were being hacked and that they needed to transfer the money immediately to a trust account operated by the ATO. The farmer shouldn't have fallen victim to it, but he did. Investigations have revealed that almost as soon as the money went into the account it was gone again. The crime has been reported to police, who have worked hard to try to track down the criminals. It's also been referred to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. While I've not seen that report, the bank from which the money was removed—and I shall name them; it's Rabobank—have informed me that the preliminary report shows that the bank bears no responsibility for the loss and that their electronic and educational systems are of appropriate standing.
I've had some long conversations with Rabobank, I must say, and attempted to convince them that maybe they should share some of the losses. However, they maintain that to do so would set precedence, which would ultimately be counterproductive. I've come to the conclusion that this is a fair argument, which I find I have to accept. One might ask why I raise the connection at all and why I've named the bank. But I tell the story just to reinforce to people that, if an individual makes a mistake and it's their error, they're on their own. There isn't really anyone that's going to pick up the pieces for them.
The important warning is to not take a blase attitude. She won't be right, mate. You are on your own. The message to Australians is that they should be concerned, and, if they've not had recent advice on digital security, they should get that advice immediately and act on that advice because we are all potential victims in this outbreak of scams. We all have to take special individual care. I will keep working with those people who are affected, of course, and doing what I can, but, really, the most important thing I can do now is try and put the warning out there. Don't think you're too smart for this to happen to you. We can all be sucked in.
Wine Industry
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (19:55): A combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and exorbitant tariff increases by China of around 200 per cent have left many South Australian wine growers and winemakers in despair, with many growers left with no buyers for their grapes. South Australia produces around 50 per cent of Australian wine and accounts for around 64 per cent of all Australian wine exports. It produces around 80 per cent of all Australian premium wines. In normal times, the wine sector contributes well over $2 billion to the South Australian economy. It is also a major tourism driver for the state. However, right now the sector faces a bleak future, confirmed by a recent report by the South Australian Wine Industry Association and Bentleys SA. Of the respondents to the survey of 116 wine companies, two-thirds had experienced negative impacts due to the wine duties imposed by China and, of those, 57 per cent had quit the Chinese market altogether.
It has been reported that, in the last financial year, Australia's wine sales to China had plummeted to $25 million compared with $1.1 billion two years prior. This takes Australia's wine exports to China back to pre-2007 levels, wiping out more than a decade of growth. The impact of COVID-19, which caused labour shortages and greatly reduced visitor numbers, compounded the collapse of the wine exports to China. With the Chinese market almost non-existent and with excellent vintages in the past two years, the oversupply of red wine is expected to continue into next year. My understanding is that storage tanks are full with unsold wines. Numerous growers have been left with a year's production costs but no buyers for their grapes this year and, very likely, the year ahead. It's a grim outlook for South Australia's wine sector. There is talk of finding new markets—this is easier said than done. Whilst the domestic market has been fairly static and seems unlikely to deliver significant growth, the US and Singapore markets have been a bright spot. However, other markets have not been able to even come close to replacing the massive drop in exports to China since the punitive duties were imposed in 2020.
It is not only the businesses and their families but also their employees who face a tough time, with around 8,400 people in South Australia directly employed in the wine industry. A recent discussion I had with a Barossa Valley wine producer confirmed for me the bleak future facing growers. Adding to the woes, Riverland wine growers, who reportedly account for about 50 per cent of South Australia's total wine crush and 32 per cent of the national crush, now face Murray River flooding problems. To his credit, the South Australian Premier, Peter Malinauskas, only this week took his cabinet to the South Australian Riverland to hear firsthand about the region's struggles and to announce state government assistance measures under a $51 million, wide-ranging initial relief package. Among the assistance measures, including jointly funded Commonwealth and SA government measures, are personal hardship emergency grants and assistance for local businesses. But more needs to be done.
South Australia's wine industry spans several regions, and decades of investment have gone into vineyards and wineries. Further investments were made and encouraged on the back of the free trade agreement with China in 2015, after which sales to China skyrocketed. That's why rebuilding Australia's trade relationship with China and securing new markets with other countries is crucial. In that regard, I commend the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, and the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Don Farrell, for their efforts in making inroads into repairing our relationship with China and with other countries where the relationship had badly deteriorated under the Morrison government. It is rebuilding those relationships that offers hope and a sustainable future for South Australia's wine industry. Wine growers are predominantly family enterprises with ongoing annual overheads, financial loans to repay and rising freight, energy—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. It being 8 pm, in accordance with the resolution that was agreed to earlier today, the debate is interrupted.
The House transcript was published up to 20:00 . 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
Cox, Mr Raymond James
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (09:30): I rise today to acknowledge the passing of Raymond James Cox. Devoted to his wife, Veronica, and children, Graeme, Rodney, Lorraine and Deb, Ray was deeply involved in the life of my electorate. His life was varied in its course, and he was shaped as a result of his experiences. He went to sea at the young age of 15, serving in the Merchant Navy, and at 18 he joined the Royal Australian Air Force marine section, air-sea rescue unit, during World War II. These experiences of war, in particular his presence at the surrender of the Japanese 2nd Army at Morotai, affected him deeply. Ray was on the barge that brought General Blamey ashore and witnessed the surrender. Years later he wrote:
It was in the clearing—a large covered table with aides seated—a squad of armed guards—General Blamey, facing east appeared between table and guards. Somehow the Japanese General appeared marching towards Blamey, his sword across his outstretched arms, hands open. About two paces from Blamey he bowed, stepped forward, saluted Blamey who returned the salute, both turning toward the table and signing the surrender document.
He wrote:
It was only part of a very adventurous day for me, I had been at war for years, 19 years old, and rather reflective that some of my closest comrades were no longer there to share the moment.'
Ray Cox was given a lithograph copy of the surrender document, which the family have framed. It was a different time and a very different style of war to what we experience today.
In his 40s Ray worked hard to attain his HSC. He used this qualification to become a ship captain working on the Manly fairies and the hydrofoils. Throughout Ray's life he was a passionate participant and politics at every level. He was a firm believer in the power and strengths of our democratic institutions and was a dedicated unionist. Ray was a committed environmentalist, most notably spending 20 years on the executive committee of Curl Curl Lagoon Friends. He campaigned tirelessly for the protection of Manly Dam war memorial park. He was also involved with Oxfam Walk Against Want, helping to establish the event on the northern beaches.
Ray was unshakeable in his belief in the good nature and value of other people and was always striving for a better future to be shared by all. That wish for a brighter future expressed itself in many different ways, in his involvement in unionism and workers causes, his contributions to ensuring that all future generations would inherit the splendour and beauty of the natural environment that had given him so much joy and his work as a fundraiser and active participant helping raise people out of poverty across the world.
Ray was dedicated to fighting the good fight. He demonstrated the importance of being a good person, of looking out for others and of thinking of the future. He will be greatly missed.
Greenway Electorate: Memorial Grove
Domestic and Family Violence
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway—Minister for Communications) (09:33): Recently I visited a new addition to the Blacktown Showground. This addition was years in the making and holds immense significance for the people of Western Sydney, in particular for Kylie Druitt and for Hayley and Ireland Rhodes. These brave women shared their painful experiences about losing people they loved to family violence, a story that inspired what is now Memorial Grove. I was privileged to join Kylie to visit Memorial Grove with the Deputy Mayor of Blacktown City, Councillor Julie Griffiths, who passionately helped bring this idea to fruition.
Memorial Grove offers a safe space to reflect on the experiences of survivors of family violence, to remember those who have tragically lost their lives at the hands of the people who should have love them the most. At the very centre of Memorial Grove is a sculpture entitled Contemplate. It was designed by Yu-Fang Chi, created in the shape of a tear drop. As Kylie pointed out to me, although it wasn't designed with this in mind, the sculpture allows space for visitors to place flower stems in memory of victims and survivors. Memorial Grove is incredibly important in increasing awareness and understanding around family and domestic violence in Australia.
The Albanese government is committed to providing the leadership and investment to help end this terrible scourge. We know that paid family and domestic violence leave is part of that commitment. It is a long overdue reform that will save lives, and I pay tribute to those who have been fighting for these changes for years, including the union movement. It will enable people, overwhelmingly women, to have the means to escape violent situations without risking their financial security or employment. Our government is delivering 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave for Australian workers, and, in the October budget, the Albanese government committed $1.7 billion in investments to address violence against women, including an additional 500 community frontline workers, consent and respectful relationships education in schools, safe and affordable housing for women fleeing violence and a new Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. I thank Blacktown City Council, Kylie, Hayley and Ireland; and my colleagues ministers Rishworth, Gallagher and Burke for these vital contributions to help eliminate family violence. This work will create a safer future for generations of Australian women and men to come.
Energy
Mr JOYCE (New England) (09:35): I want to remind the Australian people that mobile phones were invented in 1973 and, by 1983, they were commercially available. Now in excess of 90 per cent of the world has mobile phones. In fact there are more mobile phone connections than there are people in the world. Some 7.26 billion people have mobile phones. It shows the advancement of technology. We have to realise that that path that mobile phones took from 1973 to 2022 is now starting with small modular reactors. It has started. People might have a form of scepticism but, make no mistake, modular reactors are being made in factories, including micro reactors that are one per cent of the size of a nuclear reactor and modular ones, like the one that has been developed for the city of Leeds, which is 16 metres high and four metres wide, to power 503,000 people.
The alternative, of course, is renewable energy, which, as we can see, is the most expensive energy. It's only commercially viable because it's sold in five-minute blocks. Anybody can turn up for five minutes while the wind is blowing and sell power. It's the rest of the day that becomes a bit of a problem, and, therefore, they have to go back to other sources, such as gas, which is terribly expensive.
People say, 'Well, where would you want a reactor?', so I've had a survey done in my electorate, and these are the results. People think the biggest contributor to the rising cost-of-living is unrealistic climate targets. This is rather a large sample from Tamworth. This survey was advertised on the ABC; it was not advertised just in small areas. We cast the net wide to find out what people's views were. The unrealistic climate targets are thought to be one of the biggest reasons for power prices being where they are. But here is an interesting finding: 55 per cent of people were prepared to have small modular reactors in New England. The world is changing, and we've got to realise that younger people's attitudes are different to the attitudes that may have been present in the 1980s, with Chernobyl. We're going to be left behind unless we catch up to other countries in the world.
People are seeing that their power bills have gone up by an average of $222 per quarter for a person. That's $888 per year—nearly $1,000 a year. This is money people just don't have. Fuel bills are going up by $64 per week. This is a lot of money that is coming out of family budgets. And they're expecting us to be dynamic enough to say that the solution is not to absolutely desecrate the landscape with hundreds of wind towers which right now, believe you me, are incredibly unpopular.
Northern Territory
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Lingiari) (09:38): The Stuart Highway runs north-south, from Darwin at the top of the Northern Territory where land meets the ocean right down to the South Australian border. The town of Elliott is the halfway point, surrounded by large Barkly regional pastoral leases. It is on Jingili country, but people from many neighbouring tribes and language groups have lived there side by side for generations, many of them the descendants of stockmen who were moved off stations following the decision by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to vary the terms of the Cattle Station Industry (Northern Territory) Award.
In October I had the honour of attending the long-awaited opening of the Northern Land Council office in North Camp. The NLC has a crucial role to play over coming years in helping various native title groups navigate a path through the issues and decisions which need to be addressed in relation to the proposed production of shale gas on their country.
Co-located in the same premises will be an important local Aboriginal organisation called Kulumindini Aboriginal Corporation, who will advocate for and provide to Aboriginal people in Elliot. Guest of honour at the opening was local custodian and leader Heather Wilson, who has been instrumental in getting Kulumindini up and running. She wants to see young people getting involved, getting educated and getting the jobs which for too long have gone to people from elsewhere, while at the same time staying true to their culture and identity. It is a great vision and goal.
Kulumindini will resume the good work started in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s by a similar entity called Gurungu Council. The old Gurungu Council office is also in North Camp and it is now the workplace of the Kulumindini Arts Centre artists. Amongst them is Harold Dalywaters, who's gifted as both a painter and musician. He was the singer for the Barkly legends, the Kulumindini Band, and over that decade has seen how music can be a force for good and for promoting the Jingili Mudburra language, culture and pride. The first album sent out a challenge to the community and in particular to the young Aboriginal people in Elliott and the Barkly, and it's called 'You're Not Useless'. Harold wants to try and revive that spark. Because of COVID and other logistical issues, the Bush Bands Bash weekend, which Music NT usually holds at a venue near Alice Springs, didn't happen, so Music NT helped Harold and the community to set up something special for Elliott and the surrounding communities—their own little music festival, which I'm looking forward to going to next year.
Davis, Mr Dennis Albert
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (09:41): It's a privilege to rise and pay tribute to the life of Dennis Albert Davis, a veteran of World War II and a Rat of Tobruk. Indeed, his passing marks the last Rat of Tobruk in New South Wales. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to his record of military service and the contribution he made to Australia since World War II.
Dennis was a man who joined the Australian Imperial Force at a very young age, serving in the 6th Australian Recruit Training Battalion, the 8th Australian Division Supply Column, the 9th Australian Division Supply Column, 12 Company Australian Army Service Corps, and the 2/156 Australian General Transport Company. Dennis's service throughout World War II includes the Middle East, Tobruk, New Guinea, Morotai and Borneo. He served the entire service of the war. In that epic battle that defined World War II, in the first instance where the Allied military machine was able to stop the Nazi military machine at Tobruk, he was there. He drove, in some cases, 41 hours straight to provide supplies for the troops there. It's a fact of Australian military history and Australian culture that the finest moniker a man could be given after World War II was to have been a Rat of Tobruk. We're very proud of that generation and the service that the Rats of Tobruk gave.
Dennis was an amazing human who lived to 102 and died this year. At 100, he was still walking every single morning at 5 am. He'd get up and walk four kilometres and attend Mass every single day. He continued to work and volunteer to help other men and veterans who had been affected by the war, including recent servicemen. He is survived by two children—his daughters Linda and Maureen—seven grandchildren and 19 great-grandchildren.
It was a very special privilege of mine to be able to meet Dennis and hear from him. As a student of Australian military history myself, to sit with someone who served at Tobruk and hear from him about his wartime experiences was one of the great privileges I had. I think for anyone who has met someone who served in one of those epic Australian battles, it is really intense to understand what these very young Australians went through and the sacrifices they made.
On behalf of the Castle Hill RSL sub-Branch and the St Bernadette's Parish of Castle Hill, I just want to take a moment of parliament's time to pay tribute to yet another passing of a Rat of Tobruk, a man who served our country so well. He was a man who served Australia so well after the war. He was a man who cared for his family and for his community right until his death this year at 102. Tobruk, they say, was the siege that changed history, and I pay tribute to Dennis and his great service to Australia.
Industrial Relations
Bean Electorate: Schools
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (09:44): This fortnight, this parliament has a critical opportunity to take decisive action for workers across our nation by passing our Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022—action that must be taken. We can also take action on behalf of lower-paid workers being exploited by multinational companies like Amazon around the globe.
As Black Friday sales begin, not just in America but also here in Australia and many other countries, Amazon workers will face undeniable pressure and stress to fulfil orders around the globe. The race to the bottom on wages and secure jobs is a global problem, and Amazon is a prime example. This week the SDA, TWU and unions across the world are calling for an end to poor working conditions and low wages for Amazon workers. Amazon Flex drivers aren't even getting the minimum wage. They have no rights and they are pressured to drive dangerously overloaded cars to avoid being sacked on a whim. While profits soar, they're seeing no pay rises for working unimaginable hours without breaks. We're seeing discrimination against pregnant workers. In too many of their sites across the globe, Amazon workers are forced to work in unsafe environments, often too afraid to speak out or to join the union for fear of retaliation. As the union for Amazon online retail workers, the SDA has worked tirelessly to stop the Americanisation of wages and working conditions in Australia. The TWU is also working hard to prove provide safe standards for transport workers who deliver Amazon's goods to consumers. It's time to make Amazon pay.
In a sign of things returning to some normality, it has been great to get back out and start attending a range of school fetes and activities around my electorate of Bean. On Saturday 12 November, I attended the fete at St Thomas the Apostle Catholic Primary School in Kambah. It was a very well-organised and well-attended event and it was good to see the entire school community come together to showcase the school and all it has to offer. Congratulations to all the students and staff.
I'm looking forward to attending the Bonython Primary School celebration this Friday, which will mark the 30th anniversary of the opening of the school by Queen Elizabeth II. It's shaping up to be a fantastic, if somewhat poignant, event. The Bonython Primary School community have done a great job of putting it all together, and I am proud to be able to support the event. Hardworking school communities are the foundations of every great school and every great community. This is something everyone here knows. I look forward to the Bonython Primary event this Friday, as well as all the other fetes that come across this summer.
Grey Electorate: Clontarf Foundation
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Opposition Whip) (09:47): I'd like to speak this morning about Clontarf, the academy for Aboriginal boys, which uses football and sport as a tool to provide stability and purpose in their lives. It's very good if they produce football champions, but that is not the aim of Clontarf. It was founded by Gerard Neesham in 2000 with just 25 boys. Gerard was a schoolteacher and a footballer. He played a few games for the Sydney Swans, but he had a long career in the WAFL with East Fremantle, Swan Districts and Claremont. He coached Claremont and he was the inaugural coach of the Dockers. Without doubt, his finest work comes from the establishment of Clontarf, and that's what Gerard Neesham will be remembered for.
There are now more than 10,000 boys in 139 Clontarf academies around Australia, including 900 year 12s this year. In South Australia, I'd have to say we were late onto the bandwagon. The Labor government in South Australia was not keen on Clontarf because it was a boys only academy, but eventually we had a change of government and Steven Marshall said, 'We will have Clontarf here.' I remember speaking to Gerard about the boys-only aspect of Clontarf. He said, 'We find that if we can get the boys properly engaged, the girls do so much better as well, because the whole system becomes much more stable.' We were a late joiner, but we now have seven academies in South Australia and four in Grey: at Port Augusta, Whyalla, Coober Pedy and in Port Lincoln.
I was lucky enough to attend the graduation ceremony in Port Lincoln only a couple of weeks ago, and I would like to give a shout-out to those award winners there. The Junior Sportsman of the Year was Kale Miller-Dorrizie, the Senior Sportsman of the Year was Tristan Edwards. The Training Award was won by Jefferey Coleman. The Attendance Awards were taken by junior Blake Wells and senior Dre Vlassco. I might say that the Port Lincoln Clontarf Academy is achieving attendance rates of over 85 per cent, which is so fantastic when it comes to Indigenous kids. The Junior Encouragement Award went to Connor Kropinyeri, and the Senior Encouragement Award went to Brodie Carbine. The Good Bloke Award—in Clontarf good blokes are held in very high regard—went to junior Lucas Retallick and senior Kailan White. The Clontarf Spirit Academy Member of the Year went to junior Hudson Saunders and senior Nathan Hirschausen-Burk.
I would like to congratulate all of them. I would like to congratulate all of those in Port Lincoln involved with Clontarf but also those in Coober Pedy, Whyalla and Port Augusta. I get to their events when I can. I strongly support their work. It is a raging success.
Maribyrnong Electorate: Rail Infrastructure
Essendon Primary School
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (09:50): For too long, people in Melbourne's fast-growing north-western suburbs, including my electorate of Maribyrnong, have been less well served by public transport. Of course anyone who lives in Melbourne knows that there has been a long obsession about when and if we would ever get a train line between the city and the airport. Due to changes in the electoral borders after the 2019 election, the Melbourne Airport is now in my electorate. So, of course, that means every member of parliament who lands in Melbourne visits Maribyrnong first.
What is most exciting is the arrangement between the Andrews government and the Albanese government that an airport rail line is going ahead. Most particularly, it will include a new railway station at Keilor East. This is a giant win for our communities. A new railway station in Keilor East will be a game changer. It will deliver alternative transport options not just for people who wish to come from the airport but for other people who wish to travel to the city who can now use Keilor East is a railway station. It means for the first time more than 150,000 residents in the area will be linked to Victoria's rail network, via the Melbourne Airport railway project. This is very exciting. This will be a boon for the whole electorate and neighbouring electorates and a boost for the economy of Victoria. Many people who work at the airport also live in Maribyrnong. I have had countless conversations about better access to the airport, and I am proud that we are finally able to make this happen.
A new railway station on the airport rail line is an example of how the power of persistence and representation ultimately sees through to an outcome. It is the result of hard work and advocacy by local state MPs—in particular, Mr Ben Carroll, the member for Niddrie and a minister in the Andrews government. It's a result of multiple meetings with the Melbourne authority, the Victorian rail authority and, of course, the airport and the councils to ensure maximum benefit across Maribyrnong. I congratulate the incoming Mayor of Moonee Valley, Councillor Pierce Tyson.
The fact is that it will be jointly funded by the Victorian state and Commonwealth governments to the tune of $5 billion each. It also shows the power of collaboration. This is an investment in infrastructure that will generate an investment in the people and the businesses of our region. It's been an honour for me to do my part for my local communities to make sure their voices are heard. This is a dream as old as the Melbourne Airport, and now it comes to fruition.
In the remaining time, I might just also acknowledge the Essendon Primary School fete, which I recently attended. I congratulate the school council, the teachers and the student leadership group who made that such an outstanding event.
Fairfax Electorate: Rail Infrastructure
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (09:53): A Courier Mail survey has revealed that a new heavy passenger rail line between Beerwah and the Maroochydore CBD is the top priority for Queenslanders. This is terrific news, but it tells Sunshine Coast locals something they already know, which is that we must have this new heavy passenger line all the way through to our new CBD. We know that, especially in light of extraordinary population growth in our region, we need better transport. We also know that the commute between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane continues to get busier, take more time and be less safe. That is despite the coalition's record investment of $3.2 billion on the Bruce Highway between Brisbane and Gympie.
This rail line is key to getting people out of cars and onto public transport between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. It's also vitally important to allow for density of population around new railway stations along that new link, which allows for good population planning and settlement in one of Australia's fastest-growing regions.
It was for these reasons, plus the fact that we are hosting the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games on the Sunshine Coast, that, with my colleague the member for Fisher, we spent over five years working with our community on a campaign that unlocked $1.6 billion towards that rail link in the budget announced by the coalition earlier this year. That $1.6 billion constitutes 50 per cent of a $3.2 billion project, a project cost that was done with the private sector in conjunction with the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads and was overseen and reviewed by both Infrastructure Australia and the fast rail authority.
In the budget that has recently been brought down by the new Labor government, the $1.6 billion thankfully hasn't been ripped out, which is a good thing. However, within the forward estimates for the next four years, instead of there being $250 million spent on this rail line, it will only be $50 million, and that's not until year 4. In other words, we are looking at considerable delays. In a high-inflationary environment, we know that the delay caused by the Albanese government means that the overall cost will go up for this rail line. The total cost of $3.2 billion will undoubtedly not cut the mustard, so we need to continue the fight and ask them to bring it forward.
Spence Electorate: Community Events
Mr BURNELL (Spence) (09:56): I rise today to give voice to an event that we held last week in the electorate of Spence, in partnership with the City of Playford: Defence Industry Day. This is the second year that we've held this event in my electorate, and it gives voice to a large manufacturing operation that's going on in and around the area. Thankfully, we had quite a large contingent of primes present at that event and many up-and-coming manufacturers. We had people who were part of our Edinburgh Industry Alliance, an event I was lucky enough to speak at a few months earlier back in August.
I'm extremely thankful that we had the Assistant Minister for Defence and Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Thistlethwaite, as our keynote speaker at that event. It provided an opportunity for us as a government to deliver a clear message to the manufacturing industry within the defence space in Spence and across Australia that the Labor government supports the defence industry and supports manufacturing within the defence industry.
With over 260 attendees, the event was well attended, with a lot of networking going on. I'd also like to speak about the opportunity the assistant minister had to have firsthand experience of three of our local manufacturers, Sonnex, XTEK and Levett Engineering, at the old home of Holden's General Motors. This was a great opportunity to see firsthand what the great people of Spence are capable of doing and the contracts that they are contributing towards. I feel that this was a fantastic day. It was a fantastic opportunity for the assistant minister to get to know a bit more about my electorate and to get to know my local mayor in the area, Mayor Glenn Docherty, who had recently been re-elected for a fourth term. Thank you to Minister Thistlethwaite for coming down.
Lastly, I'd like to quickly touch on another event I held earlier on the week, on Monday, which ties into this. That was our third veterans wellbeing roundtable for the new veterans hub going into the electorate of Spence, an extremely well-attended event. It's something that's very close to my heart as a veteran. I very much appreciated all those who attended and provided valuable contributions throughout the day.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) (10:00): Before I call the minister to propose the schedule for the order of consideration of the portfolios, I would like to remind all members of the purpose of the consideration in detail stage and outline the way in which it is expected to proceed. Shortly, the Federation Chamber will be asked to agree to a proposed schedule for consideration of portfolios. This may need to be varied, but it is a useful guide to assist ministers and members to arrange their commitments.
Consideration in detail is a debate, and the call will be alternated between government and non-government sides as always. Even though this debate sometimes takes the format of question and answer, this is not question time. Ministers and government backbench members, both, will be considered as speakers on the government side and should bear this in mind when they seek the call. All speakers are required to be relevant to whichever portfolio is being examined, but there is no requirement of direct relevance in respect of any responses. It might be practical for ministers to respond to more than one speaker when they seek the call. I note that this is a general arrangement applied in recent years and seemed to allow maximum participation in the stage of the debate.
Each minister and member will have up to five minutes to speak each time they are called, but they may wish to speak for a shorter time. Ministers may wish to speak first and make an introductory statement when debate on their portfolio begins, but that is a matter for them to decide. Members might also be aware of some administrative documents that are circulating when consideration in detail begins. Just to avoid confusion, let me say that any documents showing times allotted for debate on portfolios are informal and indicative only. Chairs will not be seeking to enforce these times strictly.
In accordance with standing order 149, the Federation Chamber will first consider the schedule of the bill.
Mr KEOGH (Burt—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (10:03): May I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order shown in the schedule, which has been circulated to honourable members. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Federation Chamber that the proposed order for consideration of portfolios' estimates has been discussed with the opposition, and there has been no objection to what is proposed.
The schedule read as follows—
Defence
Industry, Science and Resources
Education
Health and Aged Care
Attorney-General's
Home Affairs
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts
Social Services
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Treasury
Employment and Workplace Relations
Finance
Prime Minister and Cabinet
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
Defence Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $647,416,000
Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:04): I acknowledge the significant investment in defence which the government is making in this budget. The budget delivers on the government's election commitments, and defence funding is projected to increase to more than two per cent of GDP over the forward estimates, the highest in decades. I think it's fair to say that most acknowledge that we will need additional investment in coming years, as well, as we contemplate the impact of the DSR nuclear submarines and other things left unfunded by the previous government but are necessary.
We will be waiting a long time, I expect, for an apology from those opposite for the disgraceful scare campaign they ran during the election about what Labor would do with defence. Some $270 billion in defence capability is committed over the decade to 2029-30, with new and targeted initiatives. I particularly note—and the minister may want to provide more information about this—the $5.1 million committed to research and development into biofuels to support renewable fuel production. Fuel security, of course, is so important, but there's a fact that was lost on the former government: you've got to actually have the fuel in Australia, not in Texas. The former government, for nearly a decade, presided over a degradation of our refinery capabilities and a failure to go anywhere near meeting the international benchmarks for fuel storage, and then, in a con trick, they signed a contract for some petrol that's still sitting in America. 'Underwhelming' would be an understatement of their performance.
I welcome the new Australia Pacific defence school to train Pacific island countries' defence and security forces. That is a strategic investment to help our friends in our Pacific family. It is also demonstrably in our national interest. It's a question the minister might have a view on. I wonder whether the minister has any insights into whether the opposition will try and play tawdry politics with this, like they do with climate change and helping the Pacific. Climate change, of course, is a national security issue—a point, again, lost on those opposite. Thank you, member for Bass for nodding. I acknowledge that it must be difficult for the Liberals, after a decade of decay, dysfunction and disgraceful mismanagement of defence, to have to watch competent ministers start to clean up their mess.
They are serious concerns. The Australian National Audit Office and defence data—independent, reputable, reliable data—show that major defence projects totalling $69 billion are facing major delays and overruns. Twenty-eight of those projects have racked up a cumulative 97 years behind schedule. That involves ships, planes, satellites, battle command systems—things that are absolutely critical if we're to provide credible deterrence. There are many examples, but I would suggest to the chamber that defence is the most egregious example of the former government's—and the former Prime Minister's—pattern of announcing things but not actually delivering and not having a plan to deliver. We saw, just before the election, one of those little announcements they popped out, thinking, 'Maybe this will get us a couple of votes.' They said, 'We're going to have 20,000 new members of the ADF over the next decade or thereabouts.' It was a $38 billion commitment with no detail and still no plan as to how they were actually going to deliver it.
This is really critical stuff. As our strategic circumstances continue to deteriorate—the worst position we've been in since World War II—we've inherited a budget that was riddled with rorts, waste and delays. The waste is amazing. There are already $6.5 billion of cost blowouts that we've got to manage in just a small number of projects. Then there are the submarines. In 10 years in office, not a single submarine was actually ordered, but billions of dollars was flushed down the toilet. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, you can't go into battle waving a press release. You can't confront the enemy and say, 'Just hold on a minute, I've got the budget papers, which pencil in a bit of money.' You can't say: 'Please don't shoot! I've got a video from Scotty from marketing making an announcement about something that might happen'—I'm sorry. I withdraw that: the member for Cook. Members should be addressed by their correct titles and be given the respect they deserve. Twenty thousand in 10 years! Unbelievable!
The government didn't make this mess, but we are taking responsibility for cleaning it up, and it will be a long hard road to do so. I would ask the minister to outline to the chamber what steps we're taking to improve delivery and revitalise the projects of concern and interest. The fact is, as we've already seen over six months, that Labor is better on national security and defence than the coalition. We've got the Defence Strategic Review and the force posture update—the most significant strategic review of defence since the 1980s when Kim Beazley did it. We've also had the same four ministers for the last six months. Astounding! You'd need more than fingers and toes to count how many defence ministers the opposition had when they were in government and created this mess. So I commend the budget appropriation for defence to the parliament.
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (10:09): I want to pick up on what the member for Bruce said. The Fuel Security Act 2021 provides a legislative framework for a government to establish a national fuel reserve through an industry minimum stockholding obligation, and it's something that we funded for the bill. I'd like to also make note that whilst a lot of my questions were meant to be going to the Minister for Defence, he's not here today. He's sent in the B-team—not even a cabinet minister—on his behalf to come here and answer questions. I'm not expecting much from this new government, and neither can anyone in defence.
We are in some of the most uncertain circumstances since World War II. We need to be constantly looking to improve our capability and invest in our people so we're ready for whatever's around the corner. That's why the former coalition government took the important decision to ensure our soldiers on the front line have the right kit, and to ensure the men and women who put on the uniform every day, with the Australian flag on their shoulder, have the tools they need to do their job. We must be completely satisfied that they have everything they need to do their duty and that is to fight and win our wars.
Those important decisions have now been cast under a cloud of uncertainty after the recent change of government. Projects that are meant to have been announced have stalled or been put on hold. That's not surprising after the minister announced the Defence Strategic Review would be led by a former Labor defence minister who presided over the biggest cuts to Defence since 1938. We're not against reviews. We need to just ensure that this isn't a disguise for more cuts. The defence minister consistently used the review as a stalling tactic when questioned on ongoing projects and procurements.
Today I'd like to encourage the defence minister, who's not here today, so the Minister for Veterans Affairs who's here on his behalf, to tell the Australian people and to tell the brave men and women who serve our nation, that there is certainty for certain projects like Land 400 Phase 3 and the Black Hawks. The minister is well aware of the issues that have been plaguing the MRH-90 Taipans. There have been nine instances where the helicopters have been unable to fly in the last year, and $37 million has been spent by Defence to hire civilian helicopters to maintain capability while they were grounded. They have not been fit for purpose for some time. And while we could debate the decision on why they were purchased in the first place, this issue has become urgent. That's why the former defence minister listened to the people who use the aircraft, the people who fly in it, the soldiers who use it and the pilots, and that's why we decided to acquire the tried and tested Black Hawk.
The wheels were set in motion to acquire Black Hawks and negotiations started with the US. But on the same day the US government approved 40 new Black Hawks for the Australian Defence Force, the minister hinted that the decision was under review as part of the Defence Strategic Review. I was CASEVACed from Afghanistan in a Black Hawk. Many of my friends were airlifted out in a Black Hawk. It is tried and proven. So my questions to the minister are: Why has there been a delay in purchasing the Black Hawks since the US approval was provided? When will the decision be made? And is the decision under review as part of the DSR? I note that no decision is a decision.
Land 400 Phase 3 is a decision that should already have been made. Land 400 Phase 3 is to acquire 450 infantry fighting vehicles to replace the current M113 armoured personnel carriers, which date from the 1960s. I have ADF members in my electorate who are still operating these relics, which are from the middle of the last century. Tenders had been shortlisted. The decision was due to be made in September, which was two months ago, but there's been nothing except references to the Defence Strategic Review and ongoing processes. Only the other day we saw media reports that the DSR is hinting at IFVs are not to play an important role in our future capabilities.
I ask the minister: What is the future of 400 phase 3? What is the reason for the delay and has the delay created a capability gap? Is the delay because of the DSR, is it just awaiting a cabinet decision or is it just another example of Labor using the DSR as a disguise for cuts to Defence? No decision is a decision. I'm happy that the Minister for Defence Industry has graced us with his presence, albeit somewhat late. Since some of these pertain to your portfolio, I'd like the minister to explain what's happening with Land 400 Phase 3. I think the people of Australia need to know what's happening. We need a capability that can protect our people on operations, and throughout the country.
Mr KEOGH (Burt—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (10:14): When we came to government there was a backlog of some 60-plus thousand claims in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The DVA secretary said that, under the previous government's system, approach and resourcing for the department, that backlog would never have been cleared. We're spending more than $233.9 million on employing 500 frontline staff in DVA to clear that backlog. We've removed the staffing cap so that we can transition people from labour hire into being public servants. We're developing a pathway to simplify the legislation that applies to veterans while improving the IT systems in the department to make things easier to understand and make claims faster to process.
The previous minister threatened to quit, but he never even followed through on that commitment. When we turn to the area of defence personnel, our people are the most important capability for the defence of Australia and our national interest. Given the strategic circumstances we now face, the recruitment and retention of personnel has never been more important. So it's disappointing that under the previous Liberal government defence recruitment targets were missed time and time again and defence was haemorrhaging personnel. When the shadow minister for defence says that he's concerned about recruitment numbers, I'd tend to agree: it's not an easy fix after a decade of inaction—inaction under the previous Liberal government.
But what are we doing about these issues that we have inherited? Well, we are implementing our response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide interim report. As I mentioned, we're investing $233.9 million in engaging 500 additional staff for DVA. We're investing $9.5 million in developing our new legislative pathway, $87 million to modernise IT systems, $24.3 million to provide increased and improved demand modelling for DVA so we can best understand the demand that it will be confronting, and $15.5 million in responding and assisting the royal commission.
Our budget just delivered also implements some of our election commitments: $46.7 million for 10 new veterans and families hubs across the country, in the areas where we see the highest concentrations of personnel and veterans; $24 million to deliver a veterans employment program; $4.7 million for the development of the Operation Navigator smartphone app; $97.9 million for the $1,000-a-year increase for the totally and permanently incapacitated payment, supporting some 27,000 veterans; and $46.2 million to boost defence and veteran homeownership.
We're working to improve the lives of defence personnel and their families as well. We understand the need to take action immediately. That's why we're working with defence to introduce new initiatives that will make the lives of personnel and their families just that little bit better. We will improve and increase access to education opportunities by expanding the Defence Assisted Study Scheme and study bank program. We will ensure ADF families can maintain a healthy lifestyle by doubling the payment and expanding the ADF Family Health benefit. We will recognise those who work in our most remote locations by increasing the allocation of remote locality leave travel by an additional trip per year. We will adequately compensate ADF members when they conduct higher duties by revising the current higher duties allowance policy. We're making it easier to conduct official travel by providing greater ease of access to travel allowances, and we're enabling everyone to easily understand the value of working for our Defence Force by developing and communicating a clear ADF employee value proposition framework for everyone to understand. These are just some of the things that we're doing to address the critical shortages and failures that we've inherited after a decade of the previous Liberal government being in charge of defence and veterans affairs.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (10:18): My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel. Can the Minister for Defence Personnel confirm that on 25 August 2022, when speaking to several groups of Navy defence personnel at HMAS Waterhen, he said that they will not be able to buy a home in Sydney whilst they are on defence salaries? The Minister for Defence Personnel, I'm sure, will also remember that in his speech at the Defence Reserves Association 2022 National Conference he said:
We need … to inspire the workforce of the future, increase the number of people joining the ADF, and retain talent to ensure we can deliver Defence's and our nation's capability requirements.
Can the minister for defence personnel, the member for Burt, please explain how his comments on 25 August at HMAS Waterhen inspire defence personnel to remain in the Australian Defence Force? How can his comments attract Australians to join the Defence Force? Did the minister even bother telling these young sailors and Navy personnel about the First Home Super Saver Scheme that he voted against when in opposition, or the first home deposit scheme? Did he encourage them and inspire them like he wanted to, or did he just say to these young sailors, 'On a defence salary, you'll never be able to afford a home in Sydney'? These people were so concerned about it that they rang my office to let me know. I'd love to hear your response on that.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr HOWARTH: Mate, we won our seats. Don't get too cocky over there. Arrogance is not what people want to hear. These young sailors want to be encouraged, not told they can't buy a home in Sydney. Many will agree with me when I say that today we find ourselves in testing times with the prospects for global peace deteriorating. There is no denying the threats and challenges presented by our current strategic environment, which means Australia needs to continue investing in defence capability. We don't need to go back too far in history to see the conflict in the world. In fact, on 24 February 2022, we know the Russian Federation launched a fully-fledged war on Ukraine. Looking at today's world, where geopolitics are at play and our eyes are open to the very high possibility of increased tension and escalation leading to war, and as a shadow minister for defence industry, I believe a strong and capable defence industry is essential to deliver our modernised defence capabilities for our country's needs in the face of the potential challenges ahead of us.
The defence industry needs the Albanese government to take action on issues such as supply chain disruption, skills shortages and maintaining its competitiveness. In November, Prime Minister Albanese said, 'Where are our missile capabilities?'—meaning drones—and that, in general, we need more weaponry. We know that the opposition leader and former defence minister did a lot in this space. He was a very good defence minister, and he was working in this area to secure our industry. If you look back to when I came into parliament, with the shadow minister for defence, the former Labor government had cut the guts out of it, and that's really important. ADF personnel know that the guts were cut out of defence by the former Labor government. You guys have been in for six months. To come in and pretend that somehow you're a big champion in this space begs to differ. We hope you are because defence industry, the personnel sitting behind you and the people in the ADF need our bipartisan support.
Has the Minister for Defence Industry been briefed on sovereign onshore production, missile manufacturing in Australia, its supply chain capacity and its preparedness? More specifically, has the minister been briefed on the critical components and resources required for missile production capability within Australia? Has the minister been briefed on the options and capacity of offshore missile suppliers? If the worst were to happen, would we be able to have, with disruption, the industry that we need to supply the weapons the ADF would need?
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (10:23): I'm going to try something a little different. I'm going to try and throw a little bit of trust over to the opposition side and trust in their goodwill, their good conscience and their good faith that the words they speak about the importance of our defence and national security, the bipartisanship that is necessary, in one of the most critical periods that Australia is facing—and I think we all agree on that—the most volatile geostrategic circumstances that we've faced since World War II, that they're not going to play petty politics in this space, that they follow through on the words they use when they say, 'We'll back you in because it's about Australia's national interest.' But already I've heard the first skirting towards a bit of falsehood when I heard a previous speaker talk about cuts to the defence budget.
Let me just remind those in the opposition that defence funding will rise to over two per cent of GDP over the forward estimates. It will be the highest it has been in decades. That is a fact. So, rather than playing around with misinformation or disinformation and trying to score a few cheap political points in this space, why don't you trust that good conscience that you have? I know you have it, because you care about Australia. We all do. We care about the safety and security of our nation. We care about ensuring the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific. The bipartisanship that we talk about is very, very important. So the fact is that the Albanese Labor government is delivering on its election commitments across the defence portfolio.
The other thing I heard from the opposition speaker was that somehow the DSR, the Defence Strategic Review, was an excuse not to make decisions. Let me remind the opposition that the Defence Strategic Review is actually happening at warp speed. I've been in and around this space for 20-plus years; I have not seen a defence white paper or defence update completed in such a time. It's at breakneck speed. Sir Angus Houston and Stephen Smith have delivered the first part of it and will deliver the final report. It is fundamentally important to the huge decisions that this government has to make around the future of our defence capability because, frankly, it goes to shaping the world that we live in. When we're talking about major decisions, you can't make major decisions on strategy, force posture and force structure capability one at a time. They have to be done with a view of the big picture and the strategic necessity of what we face. That's what we're doing. That's why the Defence Strategic Review is being put in place. That's why the defence minister will be making those decisions going forward once he has received that report, as it should be.
There is a global strategic contest underway between the rise of authoritarianism and democracies like Australia. We know that. With our friends and allies, we are all working together and using all the tools of statecraft—diplomacy, defence, development assistance—in the region to ensure security and stability in the Indo-Pacific because it's the neighbourhood we live in, and it's also the place where this battle is most drawn out. It's where that contest is happening. We are in the middle of the most important region of the 21st century. What we do as a government in the coming years—and, I hope, with the support of the opposition, in a bipartisan way—will effectively shape the future for our children and grandchildren in the coming decades. So maybe you can just resist the temptation to play short-term domestic politics within this defence space. Sure, we can disagree. Let's disagree on substantive issues if we must, and we can debate those. But let's not play politics with this. It's too important.
This government is committed to the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific region and the ongoing prosperity of Australia. We're a trading nation. The defence capabilities that we make decisions about will help us defend and protect the international rules based order, which is so important for our nation's future. AUKUS is part of that as well—the framework to deepen cooperation between our allies in developing leading-edge military capabilities and technology. That's critically important. It's central to shaping strategic circumstances in favour of our national interest. But it's more than just submarines, as important as that long-range naval capability is; it's about advanced capabilities, quantum computing, electronic warfare, artificial intelligence, hypersonics and counter-hypersonics. That's all happening right now. (Time expired)
Mr JOYCE (New England) (10:28): Firstly, I'd like to recognise the service of those who are in the room here today and recognise the great career that they are undertaking. I'd also like to recognise the service in my family of both grandfathers and my father. I served in the reserves, and the only thing below me was a potato. But I always recognise the seven grand-uncles of mine who were English and who were all killed.
The first action of the government under Prime Minister Albanese was to dump the veterans' affairs minister from cabinet, which I think is a disgrace. It means that what is incredibly important is not heard. We have 210,000 veterans and 100,000 dependants, and we need the minister to be at the cabinet table.
In regard to Veterans' Affairs, the coalition committed to 14 new veterans hubs. In this election policy, the Labor Party promised to roll out only 10, but when we drill through it we find out there are only eight—six fewer than the coalition promised and two fewer than the Labor party themselves promised. They try to claim South-East Queensland and Tasmania as new veterans hubs, but Senate estimates proved that was false. Those two hubs were already committed to and funded by the coalition government. Senator Cadell enunciated this during Senate estimates when he said: 'So those weren't new; they're just continuations.' Ms Pope said: 'That's right.'
The budget failed to honour commitments for veterans hubs at Mackay, the New South Wales mid-north coast, the Sunshine Coast, Seymour, Wagga Wagga, Wide Bay and the Mornington Peninsula. If I pick out one, Wagga Wagga, where we have every section of the military represented in training, it seems absurd that we don't have a veterans hub there. In April I was with the member for Cowper, announcing a $5 million veterans hub. I met with Louise Freebairn, president of the veteran wellbeing centre, along with her husband, Robert, and Richard Kellaway. That promise was never fulfilled.
In regard to World War I graves, the budget continues to shine a light on Labor's worrying trend of diluting the importance of the memory of World War I servicemen. The politicisation of the War Memorial was revealed in Senate estimates. The Solicitor-General gave advice in 2013, based upon which the War Memorial said it was not the place to tell the story of European settlement. Senator Canavan sought confirmation of whether that advice had been updated. It had not. Senator Canavan stated:
That article states:
… the Memorial has found no substantial evidence that home-grown military units, whether state colonial forces or post-Federation Australian military units, ever fought against the Indigenous population of this country.
Is that statement still the position of the Australian War Memorial?
The reply from Mr Anderson was:
That's correct, Senator, with regard to military units, correct.
But we've also had a cut in the funding and what we are now doing is politicising the Australian War Memorial, and that is a disgrace.
We've also had a cut in the funding for unmarked graves. This has been cut from the $3.7 million we were promised down to $1.5 million. I have one example of this. It is of Private Sidney George Wortley, an Aboriginal person from my district. The locals found his grave. He died at the age of 64 at Maney's Creek, Walcha. Not only did they have him in the wrong grave; they had the wrong name. He was down there as Sidney Watling. These are the sorts of things that are important. We know that at the Rookwood Necropolis there are 1,756 graves that are unofficial or unmarked. At the Cornelian Bay cemetery—I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, that you yourself were at the ceremony, with the member for Lyons—there are 316 people who served this nation and deserve the dignity of a proper burial. How can we possibly say, 'Lest we forget!' when they don't even have a headstone? We can't even identify them. This is more important than the environmental warriors program or the environmental defenders program, which seems to have no problem getting funding under this government. Let's deal with the real warriors—the people who actually put their lives on the line for this nation.
We continue to work with the royal commission. We'll be making sure that we give our best endeavours to fulfil its promises. We are working, in many instances in a bipartisan way, to make sure that these things are fulfilled. We acknowledge the $1,000 increase in the TPI; we recommended the same ourselves. We also welcome the work that was done to eliminate the backlogs. But the reason we had backlogs under our government is that we actually made it more accessible for people to apply and, because we had more volume, we needed more resources.
In closing, as the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, I always like to acknowledge those who have served our nation. Lest we forget!
Mr CONROY (Shortland—Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (10:33): I'm going to start with a statement that I think both sides of politics will agree with: we face the greatest strategic uncertainty for this country since World War II. That was reflected in the 2020 Defence strategic update, commissioned and released by the previous government, which said that, for the first time since 1945, we can no longer rely on the 10-year warning horizon for a major regional conflict. That is something that was very sobering, and something that both sides agreed with. It is something that should have spurred the last government into action. But, unfortunately, they did nothing. They said, 'We've lost the 10-year warning horizon. We have the greatest strategic uncertainty since 1945. But we're not going to speed up the acquisition cycle; in fact, we're going to slow things down.' That was symptomatic of a government that was big on announcement and hopeless on delivery. They spent $10.4 billion less on equipment than they promised in the 2016 Defence white paper. They had six defence ministers in nine years. Goldfish lasted longer than defence ministers in the coalition government.
They provided no oversight of defence projects. For example, ministerial summits on projects of concern went from one every six months under Labor to six in nine years under the previous government. And what was the result of this? Those on the other side are very focused on delivering for the ADF—as they should be, and as we are—but what was the result of their incompetence? It was 28 major defence projects running, cumulatively, 97 years late. It was 18 major projects running over budget. It was frigates running four years late and 50 per cent over budget. It was battlefield airlift aircraft running 4½ years late; they can't fly into battlefields. The offshore patrol vessel was at least 12 months late. The evolved Cape class vessel was 12 months late. These are all capabilities the ADF need that those on the other side failed to deliver.
The Albanese Labor government is already taking action on these major issues. We've announced major reforms. We've done more in our first six months than that mob opposite did in 10 long years. We've announced six major reforms: establishing an independent project and portfolio management office; requiring monthly reports to me and the Deputy Prime Minister for projects of concern and projects of interest; establishing early warning criteria for projects in trouble; fostering a culture in Defence of raising attention to problem projects early; providing troubled projects with extra resources; and convening regular ministerial summits on projects of concern, which I'll be doing very shortly for the first one.
These six important reforms are a down payment on what you'll see in the Defence Strategic Review and the new defence industrial development strategy. They are important reforms that will improve defence procurement to respond to the deteriorating strategic environment, which we all agree on but on which those opposite did absolutely nothing.
Now I can respond to the questions on missiles asked by my counterparts over there. I absolutely agree, shadow minister for defence industry, that more needs to be done. We face strategic uncertainty. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that we need to do much more. I'm focused on increasing the stocks of our current missiles, resolving some of the maintenance issues that prevent adequate and speedy maintenance, and establishing indigenous manufacturing capability in this country. They're really important tasks that I'm focused on.
The last government announced the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise two years ago but did nothing. They did nothing for two years. They hadn't even signed head agreements with the GWEO strategic partners. We're taking action. I visited Washington last month and I had very productive conversations with the Pentagon, the States Department of State, the Congress and the key defence primes over there. I'm confident that we can work together to deliver a result on missiles that will help our entire country.
Another speaker talked about Land 400 Phase 3. This is a live tender, so it would be inappropriate to go into details on it—
Mr Thompson interjecting—
Mr CONROY: but I'll make this point to the member for Herbert. If it was so important to the last government, why did they not make a decision before the last election? Why did they not make a decision? They didn't make a decision, because they were all talk on defence. They were great on media releases but hopeless on follow-through.
Unlike the coalition, the Labor Party is focused on sober analysis backed up with evidence. That will be demonstrated through the Defence Strategic Review. That will be backed up by the defence industry development strategy. That will be backed up with a laser-like focus on delivering the capabilities the ADF need, on time and with ministerial support, rather than press releases like those opposite.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (10:39): This is an important debate because we are discussing the sacred task of defending this country, which you well know, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, being a former member of the ADF, serving in the Australian Army, and a graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon.
We come to this debate on this side of the House wanting only the best for Australia and for the men and women who bear arms in defending it. And we will work constructively with the government. I've said this multiple times. We will work constructively with the government. The time for hyperpartisanship is over because, as we know, the strategic circumstances we face are dire. Authoritarian powers are on the move. Russia and China, now with a supporting act from Iran, are seeking to revise and overturn the rules-based global order that we have benefited from for many years now.
I want to note the partisan tone this side has brought to this debate today, particularly starting with the member for Bruce, a shock trooper of the Labor left with very little expertise in defence matters who was sent here to lecture us about the past. What we've noted today is the abject lack of vision from those opposite. They have been going over the past and giving us a history lesson but shown very little vision for the future. They are well off topic if you ask me. If this is about past records, I want the House to note that the coalition government over the last nine years increased defence spending by 55 per cent in real terms after the low of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, which drove defence spending to the lowest since 1938.
Government members interjec ting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ): Order! Allow the member to be heard.
Mr HASTIE: History is for historians; we are people of action in this House. The question is: what we do now? The coalition knows there is a defence strategic review underway and it will report in March. We look forward to the results. As I said, the situation is dire for our country. The invasion of the Ukraine by Russia has potentially changed China's calculus for the reunification of China, potentially taking Taiwan by force. If you think I'm exaggerating, I point to the remarks of the US admiral Philip Davidson, who in his valedictory remarks to the US Senate Committee on Armed Services last year said China may well try to move on Taiwan in the next six years. This has been supported by a US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, and also by the US Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Gilday, in October. Just this week Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister said:
If we fail to navigate the next five years carefully, there is a grave risk that by the late 20s and the early 30s, we could well find ourselves on the cusp of armed conflict.
So my question today for this government is: what is the government strategy to create a deterrent hedge if we can't get key capability by 2027? This will be answered in the DSR, but I want to note that today. The Minister for Defence acknowledged in a speech last week the need for impactful projection, and I've got to say that that is one of the dullest expressions ever penned by a public servant in this country. Impactful projection—what does that actually mean? The real question is: what progress is being made to acquire missiles and strike capabilities that will meaningfully deter any adversary out past the archipelago to the north. We've been calling for the need for long-range strike capability for missiles and how we project lethal deterrents including B-21 bombers. The question I have today is: are B-21 bombers being considered by the government? I note what the Prime Minister said recently in an interview with Greg Sheridan in the Australian, where he indicated preparedness to spend what is necessary to restructure the ADF and acquire new assets, including missiles, drones and cyberwarfare capabilities. Just last week former Labor minister Kim Beazley, someone who is rising above the partisan politics of the day, said we must raise defence spending to a significant number, well above two per cent and hinting at three per cent, which I agree with. Does this government agree with Kim Beazley on that point? What are they going to do about it? The other question I have is: has the government commenced work on implementing the PM's stated intentions to increase the defence budget and do what is necessary to achieve defence outcomes?
I will close by finishing where I began and say we will work constructively with this government because I know what it's like to serve under a government that is adrift strategically, adrift economically and creates bad policy— (Time expired)
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (10:44): PFAS contamination on and around military bases is one of the biggest challenges in our country and across the world. In my electorate of Paterson, the RAAF defence base in Williamtown is no exception. In fact, it is most problematic, because of its proximity to the rural residential properties on its border, the coastline—with an incredibly high water table—and, indeed, some Ramsar wetlands nearby. Approximately 700 households in my electorate are affected by the management zone, declared by the New South Wales EPA, that encircles those properties. It was first publicised in 2015, and those affected have had their lives placed on hold whilst awaiting a solution to this environmental disaster. For nearly seven years I have stood beside these people in my electorate, who still to this point know little of how their health and the health of their families is impacted. They have had their main asset, the value of their homes and properties, slashed. Farmers have had their livelihoods suspended. They have had little or no way to escape the restrictions that were placed on them through absolutely no fault of their own. After seven years and millions of dollars spent by the defence department and the former government, these families are no closer to a solution.
It must be noted that the defence department takes orders from the government of the day and, whilst the safety and security of our nation is in the hands of the fabulous Australian Defence Force, the local safety of our own people must start with taking responsibility. I am so proud to tell you that winning government has been a game changer for me, because the new government have finally stood up and taken some responsibility for the unmitigated mess that was there before they came to government. I am able to actually work on a solution for these families, and I haven't wasted a minute in starting this process. I want to say that my colleague the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, in his capacity as shadow minister for defence, has been with me on this journey for the past seven years, demonstrating a willingness to listen and work with my community. In our first parliamentary sitting in government, he convened a meeting with me, along with the assistant minister for defence Matt Thistlethwaite and the attorney-general Mark Dreyfus KC MP. It was clear that I had the support of my colleagues to begin this process. It was also clear that the previous government had sat on their hands.
Assistant Minister Thistlethwaite has already been to my electorate twice and met with my community, and the first thing he did was say sorry. That went a long way for those people who had spent seven years begging and pleading to try and get some meetings with people of influence within their own government. He took responsibility for the contamination and vowed to work with the defence department to help these people. It was very clear that all three levels of our government are needed to fix this mess, and we are stepping up and taking responsibility for our fair share of it. Then just last week he called a meeting with community leaders, stakeholders and experts, for those levels of government to establish what we already know, and we do know a lot. We also needed to establish what we need and how we make these things happen for our community and, quite frankly, for our defence community as well.
I'm pleased that Defence departmental staff were eager to share the work to date and participate in the conversation moving forward. I'm grateful to the local Port Stephens Council experts that could explain and offer solutions and sound counsel. I appreciate the New South Wales Government defence and aerospace staff who also participated, and I look forward to working with the EPA in New South Wales and the state government in the near future. Most of all, I'm so grateful to my community. I am grateful to people like Lindsay Clout who have hung in there and worked tirelessly to find a solution. To them I say: we will fix this as a government that stands up and takes responsibility. There is good work being done by Defence, and there's a raft of research being done by universities. We will fix this mess as a responsible Albanese government.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith—Assistant Minister for Defence, Assistant Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Assistant Minister for the Republic) (10:49): I also want to acknowledge the members of the ADF that joined us this week for the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program and thank them for their service to our nation. There's been a lot of shouting across the chamber in this important debate this morning, and I think that members of the ADF and the Australian public expect better from us when it comes to discussions about defence in the parliament. We should be acting in a bipartisan way when it comes to the defence of our nation. That's why Labor, when in opposition, supported the AUKUS arrangement that was reached by the former government, and that's why we're getting on with the job of delivering a nuclear submarine capability for Australia. Importantly, the Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce will report in March about which technology we'll go with, but also about the human investments that we need to make to develop a nuclear propelled submarine industry in Australia.
The unprecedented and difficult strategic circumstances that our nation faces at the moment have been commented on this morning. Having worked in this portfolio for the last six months, I've been struck by the pace of technological change, particularly when it comes to weapons, deterrence and cybercapacity. If Australia is going to maintain its capability edge, we need to be making the necessary investments and ensuring that we have the correct posture to deal with the challenges ahead. That's the focus behind the Defence Strategic Review. This will ensure that we're advised by the leads, in March next year, about the posture that Australia should adopt and, importantly, the capabilities that we should be investing in and the human capital that we will need to deliver those capabilities into the future.
We all know that we need to grow the Australian Defence Force. The previous government estimated that we would need 18½ thousand new ADF members by 2040. We've adopted that approach in a bipartisan manner, and we're getting on with the details of providing support to recruit more members to the ADF and to retain them. That is what the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill, which I put into the parliament last week and is currently going through the Senate today and tomorrow, is all about delivering. It has $46.2 million of improved access to support for ADF members and veterans to buy a home. We're reducing the qualifying period and removing the post-service cap for veterans to ensure that more ADF personnel and veterans can get support to buy their home in a difficult labour market.
We also know that the ADF has been involved in disaster relief in recent years, and that is increasing. I want to thank the ADF for the important role they've played in ensuring that communities can recover from disasters. But that's not the role that they signed up for, and we need to be conscious of the fact that, with climate change getting worse, we need to support disaster relief in Australia. That's what the government is doing by supporting Disaster Relief Australia with $38.1 million over the next three years to expand their veteran-led approach to supporting disaster relief in communities affected by natural disasters. The shadow minister for veterans' affairs mentioned the role of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I say to the shadow minister that we have the Deputy Prime Minister in cabinet looking after veterans. As well, we now have four ministers—a record number—working in the defence and veterans' affairs space.
The key issue for veterans has been the backlog with processing claims through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has recognised that this is a key issue that's led to a deterioration in the mental health conditions of many veterans. The government is getting on with reducing that backlog by removing the staffing cap that was put in place by the previous government, which was a handbrake on processing those important veterans' applications. That cap has been removed. We're investing in 500 additional staff, and the anecdotal evidence that I'm getting when visiting the country is that that backlog is now starting to come down. That is important support for veterans.
In regard to veterans' hubs, we promised to invest in 10. Two will be announced and opened next week. The minister is going to open two of them next week, and eight of them are under construction or in the planning phase. We are delivering on the election commitment that we made. In terms of memorials, there is the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway in Sydney. Again, $186,000 per year for the next four years is the Labor government's commitment to supporting commemoration of those who served our nation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ): Before we continue, if I could just clarify two points which have been brought to my attention. We didn't alternate, because no member of the opposition sought the call. The other point is that the time allotted in these matters is a guide only. It's not a hard and fast rule like in standing orders.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Industry, Science and Resources Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $689,686,000
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (10:55): Resources exports remain the backbone of the Australian economy, with export earnings expected to reach $450 billion in 2022-23. The resources sector employs 280,000 workers nationally and generated $43 billion in taxation and royalty revenue in the last financial year. All this revenue and this taxation helps to fund our essential services across the nation in metropolitan areas but also, very importantly, in the regional communities in which this sector principally operates.
Since its election on 21 May, the Albanese government has been working to acknowledge the important role resources will play in the transition to net zero emissions both here in Australia and around the world. We've been working to address energy security and pricing, to maintain our reputation as a reliable and stable supplier to our trading partners and to enhance our relationship with key investors.
This year we have seen large increases in international gas prices. The government has taken action to protect Australia's gas supply while maintaining our trusted trade and investment relationships with these key strategic partners. At the core of this is a package of reforms to modernise energy market regulation with the states and territories, to increase the monitoring and oversight of gas markets and to improve the functioning of the Australian domestic gas security mechanism, including moving to a more-flexible quarterly based consideration. I delivered a new heads of agreement five weeks ago with the three east coast LNG suppliers in late September. While these facilities account for only three per cent of the east coast's gas supply into the market, their commitment to supply 157 petajoules across 2023 is important to maintaining supply and, indeed, ensuring oversupply.
As we decarbonise, Australia will continue to need gas and coal in the transition to firm renewable energy generation, and iron ore and bauxite will continue to be vital inputs for steel and aluminium production. I acknowledge the member for Paterson and the member for Hunter, who is going to speak later on this matter, who represent the great coalmining communities of New South Wales. I also acknowledge the former minister for resources, the member for Hinkler, who has always been a key advocate for these communities.
This government is committed to lowering emissions, reaching net zero by 2050. Work and consultation are ongoing in regard to the very important safeguard mechanisms which will work on limiting those submissions for the large emitters of carbon dioxide in this country. Australia's critical minerals are essential for a clean energy future. Our silicon is used in solar panels. Our lithium, cobalt, graphite and vanadium are used in batteries. Our rare earths are used to create electric vehicles and wind turbines. The world will need more mining, not less, on the critical path to net zero. Without the resources sector of Australia, Australia will not reach net zero and the world will not reach a decarbonised economy.
The October 2022-23 budget contains an additional $50.1 million over three years to the Critical Minerals Development Program for competitive grants to support early- and mid-stage critical minerals projects. This builds on the $49.7 million committed last month to six key projects across Australia. The budget also contains $50.5 million to establish the Australian critical minerals research and development hub and $10 million to fund research, development and demonstration projects for commercial methane abatement in the resources sector. This government will also refresh Australia's Critical Minerals Strategy to set a clear vision for the sector and complements other government initiatives, including the National Battery Strategy and the Electric Vehicle Strategy.
The previous government issued two versions of a critical minerals strategy and did not consult anyone on either occasion. This strategy failed to make the very important link between the role of critical minerals and the path to net zero emissions and decarbonisation. It is a staggering omission and can only be explained by the deep-seated denial of the then coalition government of the need to act on climate change. Unlike the current opposition, we will consult industry experts and communities to ensure they are provided with an opportunity to have their say on the Critical Minerals Strategy of this nation.
We will also review Australia's critical minerals list, which will be considered to ensure it reflects evolving technological, economic and global conditions. International investment will be required to develop these resources, to capture more of the downstream processing supply chain and develop battery manufacturing in Australia. That's why I've recommitted $5.8 million to the India-Australia critical minerals investment partnership and recently signed a critical minerals partnership between Japan and Australia, which was announced in Perth when the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, and the Prime Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida, both visited the BHP Nickel West refinery in my electorate in Kwinana.
There is a great economic opportunity for critical minerals in this country. It will be a national mission to make it a success for future generations of Australians and indeed the whole world.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:00): I have many questions for the Minister for Industry and Science, who is not joining us today. I'm disappointed; as a minister in cabinet I never missed an opportunity to sit on the other side of this Chamber and answer detailed questions from the then opposition about our appropriations. I'm pleased the Minister for Resources has joined us, but I also understand that she doesn't speak to the minister for industry, so maybe they can't even be in this Chamber together.
This budget was a missed opportunity for the government. It was a missed opportunity to support industry and business to tackle spiralling costs, workforce shortages and the supply chain crisis. Instead, the government chose to forge ahead with radical industrial relations legislation, facilitating a spike in industrial disputes and paving a path for thousands of job losses. Mark my words: this will have a devastating effect on industry. Has the minister for industry provided any information through the budgetary process about extra support that industry will need to deal with a heightened risk of industrial disputes and potential job losses that this industrial relations bill will incur? I ask because this legislation will make a bad situation worse.
The industrial relations bill will cause mayhem for industry and business when combined with the ideological scrapping of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the funding cut they handed the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. With union paymasters running rampant across the country and no proven oversight and dispute resolution in sight after these important bodies are abolished, has the minister for industry been consulted by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations about this legislation and how the budget might provide better security to industry in light of these changes?
While manufacturers across the country struggle with rising power prices, Labor's focus is making it more difficult for industry to employ and keep workers and grow their businesses. In that context, did the minister for industry consult any stakeholders prior to the budget in relation to power price spikes with a view to establishing budgetary support for industries who are dealing with these increasing prices? Frankly, I see absolutely nothing in the budget to genuinely assist industry with these inflationary pressures.
This budget also took active steps to spitefully wipe out key features of the coalition's industry policy. We provided $2.5 billion to create the Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This support sought to bolster our sovereign manufacturing capability and empowered over 200 projects across Australia. Despite promising over and again that their National Reconstruction Fund would reinvigorate manufacturing in Australia, we saw next to nothing in the budget to roll out this program. Let me make that clear: Labor has chosen to spitefully redirect the Modern Manufacturing Initiative's funds without having rolled out their own National Reconstruction Fund.
Additionally we saw the minister conduct politically motivated reviews into already committed funds issued under the Modern Manufacturing Initiative—funds which had already undergone independent assessments by subject matter experts and the department. The government has displayed a callous lack of understanding for how these delays may have damaged these projects. I'd like to get this on record: can the minister confirm that round 3 of the Modern Manufacturing Initiative has indeed been cut? If so, can he please provide a list of projects that had already engaged with the department about round 3?
One of the key pillars of this new manufacturing strategy was our strategic decision to bolster Australia's capabilities in the space sector. We support funding to locally design, develop, manufacture and deploy specialised space products, equipment, systems and services for export to international markets and to support national and international space missions. The government chose to effectively wipe out the coalition's efforts to develop our space industry by removing it as a priority area. The space industry and the Australian public are yet to understand the basis on which this shift in focus was made. The Labor Party was gutless in explaining why these grants weren't paid out, but responses to questions in Senate estimates paint a clear picture. The minister must confirm why and on what basis space is no longer listed as a priority area.
The minister must also identify the reasons why the food and beverage industry is no longer a standalone priority in our national manufacturing strategy at a time when in the last nine months we've seen a 27 per cent increase in the cost of operations across the food supply chain. Our growers, our food processing plants, cold storage, logistics network—no-one in the food supply chain is immune to Labor's economic mismanagement.
The government must address the critical issues affecting our manufacturers, not tinker with a proven model. With power prices spiking and industry hurting, now is the time to act.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (11:05): I'm pleased to be speaking on this consideration in detail and want to take this opportunity to reflect on some of the challenges the Albanese Labor government has inherited and some of the swift actions we're taking to ensure long-term solutions.
As many would appreciate, we have a gas crisis. Gas prices continue to be a challenge for our global economy, with pressure we are seeing as a result of foreign conflict. As Minister King has said, our government has taken action to protect Australia's gas supply while maintaining our trusted trade and investment relationships with many key strategic partners. I want to commend the minister—and I'm pleased she's here today—and, indeed, the cabinet on developing and delivering a package of reforms that will modernise energy market regulation with states and territories. Our package will increase regulatory oversight, ensure more monitoring of gas markets and improve the functioning of the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism.
I want to take a moment to speak about a critical gas project in my home town of Kurri Kurri in my electorate. The Hunter Power Project, locally known as the Kurri Kurri gas plant, is being delivered by Snowy Hydro. This power station will comprise two heavy-duty open cycle turbines, which are the latest and most efficient turbines the world's best manufacturers can offer for this site. Last month I was delighted to hear that the turbines have arrived in the terrific Port of Newcastle and will be loaded off the ships and transported to the sites in the next few days.
I've made the case, as have many in this place of late, that gas is a critical step in our energy transition as we head towards net zero. We all understand the importance of transitioning and securing our grid. However, it must be done sensibly and practically. In my home state of New South Wales we still have a heavy reliance on traditional energies, and this is a fact we can't ignore. Just yesterday, 60 per cent of New South Wales energy was produced by coal-fired power stations. I commend Minister Bowen for his support for the Kurri Kurri gas project and note that, under Labor's plan, the open cycle gas turbines will operate on natural gas but will have hydrogen capacity into the future.
Our government has significant opportunities in this term of parliament and we intend to work with industry in continuing to address the challenges of energy supply and successful transition. As a government, we will effectively shape the future of Australia's energy generation because we get it. We understand you can achieve net zero while still supporting traditional energy industries. We are able to do this. The former government was incapable of getting their head around the fact that this is possible. Indeed, it is absolutely necessary. We cannot trash our traditional energy industries, like coal and gas. We must embrace them and we can also embrace net zero, and we are doing just that. We can walk and chew gum, unlike those opposite.
We also have an opportunity in bioenergy, which is a form of renewable energy generated from the conversion of biomass into heat, electricity, biogas and liquid fuels. By the start of the next decade Australia's bioenergy sector could contribute around $10 billion in extra GDP per annum and more than 26,000 jobs. On top of this, it'll reduce emissions by around 10 per cent, divert an extra six per cent of waste from landfill and enhance fuel security for our country—that is also a winner. I'm delighted to be working with a Labor government that is exploring innovation and exciting opportunities to secure our country's energy future, including in regional areas like my own and like the member for Hunter's. I know that industry welcomes the work being done by our government.
I would like to touch on a quick point. The former speaker mentioned that our government is not doing anything in food manufacturing. I can say that we've established a $17.2 million pilot food manufacturing innovation hub on the Central Coast just south of my electorate, which will complement agribusiness across the Hunter. The hub will be a regional driver for employment and economic growth, and it will also be one of those things that drives food manufacturing innovation. This project will increase employment opportunities in food processing and manufacturing, and it will also support the local economy by increasing opportunities for education, skills, research and development and tourism. This government will deliver on energy and on modern manufacturing innovation.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (11:11): I'm pleased to rise to raise some issues in relation to space policy, and I note at the outset my regret that the Minister for Industry and Science is not with us. That's not really consistent with the government's stated commitment to accountability and transparency. He is, after all, the minister for industry. If he couldn't be here, he could, at the very least, have sent an avatar or a robot to represent him. He hasn't even bothered to do that. It's very—oh, he's here! That is very good news. I'm very pleased he's here. It could be an avatar or it could be the real minister.
The coalition has a proud record of achievement on space policy. We established the Australian Space Agency to kick off the industry. We launched the Australian Civil Space Strategy 2019-28, outlining a plan to transform and grow the space sector over 10 years. Australia is in a global race to capture space opportunities, yet Labor seems to be dithering on this matter, which is putting at risk space industry momentum built under the previous coalition government, and that could mean that jobs and opportunities, as well as scientific benefits, will be lost to our international competitors. The coalition is particularly concerned for South Australian industry and jobs, given South Australia's and Adelaide's status as our space headquarters. South Australia hosts the Australian Space Agency and has attracted significant investment under the coalition government to develop our space capability and create jobs. When I visited Lot 14 recently—an initiative of the former Marshall Liberal government in South Australia—I was interested to meet with businesses operating in the space sector, but there is some uncertainty as to whether the present government is committed to space policy.
To that end, I would like to ask the minister a number of questions: What is happening with the moon to Mars grant, given that NASA has promised to send an Australian rover to the moon? According to the Australian Space Agency, these grants were assessed prior to the election, and are awaiting review by the minister, so when does the minister expect to be able to sign off on these grants? In the period between the then Morrison government announcing the funding from the National Space Mission for Earth Observation program in March 2022, and the election being held in May 2022, what actions were taken by the department or by the agency to ready itself for this program?
At the March 2022 budget, brought down by the previous Morrison government, we committed $1.16 billion through to 2038-39 and $38.5 million per annum ongoing for the first phase of this program. My questions to the minister are: What is happening in relation to this funding? Does Labor stand by it? Will it be delivered? When does the minister expect the space strategic update to be delivered to government? What consultation with the domestic space industry has occurred as part of the update? When does the minister believe the update will be available publicly? How is consultation with the space industry is going? How much engagement has there been with stakeholders? I'd also like to ask the minister: why is it that there was no representative of the space industry present at the so-called Jobs and Skills Summit, despite the sector employing more than 10,000 workers and having significant potential to employ more?
I would also like to ask the minister some questions about the Albanese government's $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. We are told that it will take two years before even the design of this fund is released. I note that Professor Shine from the Australian Academy of Science said:
… this budget falls short of the vision needed to put Australia on a strong footing in an uncertain future.
In relation to the National Reconstruction Fund, how is the National Reconstruction Fund proceeding? At a conference last week, I'm advised, he stated that the government hoped to have the legislation ready before the end of the parliamentary sittings this year. So I seek a progress update. Can we expect to see the legislation in relation to the National Reconstruction Fund introduced in the parliament before the end of the year? Are there any further details as to how the funding is going to be allocated? What will be the relationship between fundamental scientific research and commercialisation activities? And how will the National Reconstruction Fund support activities in science in Australia?
Mr REPACHOLI (Hunter) (11:16): Manufacturing is one of the pillars that have made this country what it is. Australia has a proud record of building things and building things well and building things to last. But, unfortunately, in this place, there are two types of people: those who support manufacturing and want to help it thrive and those who are responsible for major parts of the manufacturing industry shutting up shop and being shipped overseas, like the car industry. We once had the ability to make world-class products in Australia. It saddens me to know that this is, unfortunately, not so much the case anymore. That is why this government is committed to driving the transformation of the Australian industry and reviving this sector.
We have skilled workers in this country. We will have even more when this government brings TAFE back to the glory days it once had. We need to create high-value jobs across the economy and help keep skilled Australians onshore. This is a fast-moving world, and we as a country will be left behind if we don't make manufacturing one of our strong points again. This government doesn't leave anyone behind. We want to build a stronger and more resilient future. This cannot be done without delivering secure, well-paid jobs and without skilling up for the technologies of the future. Unlike those opposite who like to play dress-ups, we're taking action to deliver on our commitments to this sector.
We have committed $111.3 million through targeted grants to stimulate regional manufacturing in electorates like my own in the Hunter. I know that there are many in my electorate who have the best hands-on skills in the world. They just need an opportunity to apply these skills. I doubt those opposite can relate to this, because they probably couldn't even put together a barbecue from Bunnings.
Close to my home in the Hunter, this government is committing $17.2 million to establish a pilot food manufacturing innovation hub on the Central Coast of New South Wales. This investment will encourage employment and economic growth by supporting the food product manufacturing sector in the region. I have no doubt at all that we will feel the benefits of this in the Hunter as well. Not only will this create jobs; it will also encourage education, skills, research, development and tourism. We are a diverse country, and this only brings benefits. This diversity gives us even more chances to thrive in manufacturing and, more broadly, STEM as a whole. But in order to reap the rewards of diversity in this sector, this country needs a government that wants to see Australians from all walks of life engage in the sector.
This government is making the most of diversity in this country and has invested $5.8 million in the October budget to support a more diverse STEM workforce. Australians from all walks of life will benefit. By widening our talent pipeline, we will only increase our share in the global economy and help address the skills shortages we are currently facing.
Marketing is an important part of who I am. Before coming into this place I managed workshops that manufactured equipment for the agriculture and mining sectors. In my time managing this business I grew the business from just a dozen employees to over 70 in four years. Now I'm excited to be part of a government who is going to grow manufacturing Australia-wide and create skilled jobs for Australians in electorates such as mine in the Hunter.
I wish this passion and focus was shared in this place. But, while those opposite like to throw on a hi-vis and look like a manufacturing worker just for a photo op, the only things they really know how to manufacture are skewed marketing slogans and their own flawed visions of reality. The fact is that we are the only party who cares about manufacturing in Australia. Not only do we care about manufacturing, we care about the workers as well. We care about the workers. That's what we do. That's what the Labor party does, and that's the only party that will do this.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (11:21): I am pleased we have the two ministers from the portfolios here. Perhaps they could exchange numbers and not have to have that discussion on the front page of 'The Oz' about how they'll manage gas and the resources sector.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr PITT: Say it isn't so, because what we have from the Labor party is a budget which actually cuts support for the resources sector. These are just facts; that's what's in the budget. We have seen some extraordinary interventions. The idea that the ambassador for Japan has to buy into royalties in Queensland—and what is happening in the resources sector—is bad for this nation's reputation, it is bad for our national energy security and it is incredibly bad in terms of sovereign risk.
The Minister for Resources—I'm pleased she's here, because the Minister for Resources is having a crack. I have to identify that she is absolutely having a go, but she is hamstrung by the Greens and she is hamstrung by the left of the Labor party because they said at the election they would support the resources sector but that is not what has been indicated in the budget, it is not what has been indicated in public and it is not what has been indicated in the media. We only have to look at what's been cut from the budget: $100 million from the critical minerals area, which we put forward as part of the coalition government. It's an area of growth and one which is incredibly challenging because there is a monopoly producer in China. When there are monopoly producers they control the market. That means you need to be able to provide support to ensure that you can break that monopoly producer and have different lines of supply. This is what actually matters. The Minister for Resources outlined what is on the line: $43 billion in taxes into governments across Australia to provide services for the Australian people; 1.2 million workers, directly and indirectly; $450 billion into Australia's GDP. This is an incredible amount of money that helps to provide services Australians rely on—hospitals, roads and schools. Nothing matters more in any sector of business than confidence, and confidence in this sector is at a low because we continue to see arguments amongst ministers in the media. It is not that hard: pick up the phone and have a chat.
What else have we seen? Once again, we're back to facts. We saw 18 approvals withdrawn. Eighteen resource projects which were going ahead are now being reassessed. If we look at where those are, they are in places like the Bowen Basin, Saraji, Caval Ridge, Ensham's mine life extension near Emerald, China Stone, Mount Ramsay, Stanmore Coal, Valeria, Waratah, Whitehaven, Boggabri. The list goes on. These are billions of dollars worth of projects, billions of dollars worth of sovereign risk and tens of thousands of jobs. I don't think the Labor party understands how hard it is to get a project up in this country, to actually get finance and then get it finalised and delivered. You only have to look at what happened with Adani. It took almost 10 years, and what have they done? They have put billions of dollars into the Queensland economy.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr PITT: We keep hearing about coal. The coal sector, according to the Resources and energy quarterly, will produce $122 billion worth of GDP—thermal and metallurgical. That's more than iron ore. The coal sector deserves your support. And what have we seen? We have seen them remove the approvals for 18 projects. That is not confidence for the sector. Every single hardworking individual in the resources sector who is out there in their hi-vis, in their helmets and in their steel-cap boots deserves support from those opposite, and we are not seeing it.
I'll come back to the facts, because these are facts. The fact is that money was cut from the budget for strategic basin plans for the development of gas. We can't have a media argument from the Labor Party that says: 'We need more gas, but we're actually going to take away money that would produce more gas and open more basins.' Those ideas are diametrically opposed. That will just not work. I'll also be very interested to see, when there are exporters in Gladstone, Darwin and the Pilbara, how that gas will get to Victoria at the same price as gas that you can get now from the Bass Strait. You need the premiers online. You need Victoria, in particular, to produce their own gas because, without that, Victorian manufacturers may as well move. They should move to other parts of the country where the gas is readily available, is cheap and is there.
I will continue on with those questions. How is it that you'll get more gas in Australia when you cut support? How is it that you'll get more projects when you've withdrawn 18 approvals? How is it you'll develop our Australian economy further when we have a budget like Labor's?
Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (11:26): As an engineer who has worked on the mines—and I am standing next to my colleague and good friend who's a fitter and turner who has also worked on the mines, and I have my good friends the Minister for Resources and the Minister for Industry and Science—I could not be more proud of Labor's budget and of what we've delivered for industry and resources. Labor recognises Australia has two incredible and powerful resources that will unlock the full potential of the resource, manufacturing and research sectors for long-term success. They are our talented workforce and rare-earth minerals. I wish to thank Ministers Husic and King for the work that they've done to put this budget together and acknowledge these two facts.
Australia is home to some of the best universities and to amazing research, development and capability. As Minister Husic knows, in my electorate we have a battery pilot plant that's upskilling the next generation of engineers. Engineers such as these are at the forefront of the next big tech breakthrough. But, as a woman who has worked in STEM for the last 15 years, I can tell you we aren't using our full talent pool. Women are less likely to head into STEM careers, and they're also less likely to stay in STEM careers. This is simply not good enough. There is a handbrake on innovation in our country. I welcome the $5.8 million in the October budget to increase diversity in the STEM workforce. I note that a review on how we bring more women into STEM and retain them will be a component of that funding, and I welcome that conversation.
The STEM pipeline starts at a very young age. Getting girls engaged with STEM through play builds confidence and connections to this subject. For me, I grew up with my dad, getting on the tools, watching him change tyres, change the oil et cetera, and I built my own confidence. I'm uberconscious of making sure that my daughter has access to blocks and cars to create those building blocks to love STEM.
Retention is equally important. Labor's respect at work legislation will play a big role in improving male dominated workplaces, and I have experienced some of that stuff in some sites. Currently, only 16 per cent of the STEM workforce is female. We need to increase this. The more women we have, the more minds we have to think about wicked problems, including climate change, and part of this climate solution will be critical minerals.
The Labor government knows that the future is electric. Electric cars, electric bikes and electric scooters are skyrocketing in demand. In fact, the Parliamentary Friends of Cycling group was trialling e-bikes this morning. Both state and federal governments are also talking about dispatchable renewable energy through batteries. In Australia, we have raw materials and, at this moment, we have the opportunity to increase our role in the value chain and actually process these materials to create batteries. We, indeed, are taking steps forward to build our capacity to create batteries here. We have the materials to make solar panels as well. As the nation that has the largest share of rooftop solar anywhere in the world, it makes sense that our silicon, graphite and cobalt producers are actually part of a national strategy.
Labor's Critical Minerals Strategy is a refresh on the two failed versions of the previous government. It will consult with industry experts and communities and ensure that they are provided an opportunity to have their say. Experts should lead the conversation on developing our critical minerals strategy, decarbonising our economy and using the know-how and can-do attitude of Australian miners, manufacturers, researchers and workers.
Addressing climate change while having a vision for the future of our economy is Labor's plan. This is exactly what this budget delivers. The October 2022 budget contains almost $1 million in tailored grants to support the development of critical minerals and $50 million to establish the Australian Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub. This isn't just a press release or an announcement. This is tangible progress.
When I knock on doors in my community, this is what people are saying they want. They want action on climate change, and they also want a plan to create high-paying, good, secure jobs for them, their families and their children. I'm proud to be part of a government that has produced a responsible and targeted budget and that cares about industry and resources.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:31): I hate to point out to the previous speaker that the opposition now has been in government for 4½ months, so if anyone's entitled to the credit for the glass on the roofs it should be the Liberal Party. I, of course, take the opposite position: they should be condemned for putting the glass on the roofs. There is no-one in this place who knows more about it than I do because I put in the first standalone system in Australia, won the national science prize for that year and also went into detail of producing high-tech silicon here in Australia.
I can tell you that, if you can think you can produce that glass on your roof without producing CO2, you believe in the tooth fairy. To process silicon—and that's even if it's in sand, whereas most of it's in rock form—is enormously costly in terms of CO2. Guess what you smelt silicon with? You smelt it with coal. You burn coal. There's no other way of producing glass than to burn coal. That's a little bit of a lesson there. And who gets the blame? History will decide that.
You are driving us into intermittent power. You are taking away reliable power. I don't know about other people, but I priced a little generator, some batteries and an inverter, because we have already had outages twice in Queensland because Callide B is closing down. They're not going to do any repairs or maintenance on it, and it's constantly dropping out. Five power stations are closing in Australia, taking one-seventh of our base-load power away and replacing it with intermittent power.
That's not the worst of it. I find myself going along to greenie meetings. The bloke almost died of shock when I turned up at a greenie meeting! They are anti windmills, anti windfarms and anti solar because, to quote the professor who gave the address to over 200 of us, twice, in Cairns: 'What is happening here? Stand back and have a look at what is happening here. What is happening here is our nature wonderland is being replaced with an industrial wasteland.' That is exactly what is occurring.
Of all the people in this House, the one that seems to know most about it is Minister Plibersek. I said that the CO2 goes into ponds to grow algae. CO2 is a product. It's not an emission; it's not a by-product. It's a product. We want to produce as much CO2 as we can possibly humanly produce, and a coal-fired power station is the best way of doing that because that CO2 is the feed for algae. The minister actually knew the name of the algae—which is much more than I knew—you use to produce diesel. It's a different type of algae to produce feedstock for chooks, pigs, cattle, fish farms, whatever. That's the way of the future. I went to Israel, because Mike Kelly, the senior minister in the Rudd government, told me I had to go to Israel. They are making so much money out of the CO2. They're putting into hothouses and they're putting it into ponds to grow algae, and that is where we want to go in Australia.
I just don't understand how people don't understand this. I ask people, 'How often do you clean your windscreen?' and they said, 'Oh, once a week, twice a week.' How often do you clean your solar panels! It's the same thing. You've got to clean the solar panels—our advice was—every nine days. I put the first standalone system in; our advice was that we had to clean them every nine days. No one in Australia cleans their solar panels. Just like your windscreen, if you can't see through it, the sunlight can't get through it. That's apart from any other consideration of putting holes in your roof—you never, ever do that—and putting stuff up there that has to be replaced every 20 years. Jeez Louise, I just don't know where you're going with this.
For relegating the economy of Australia to intermittent power instead of base-load power, truly, future generations will curse you. As a published historian, I'm entitled to say that. I just want to say, on the good things in the budget, the $150 million— (Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (11:36): As much as I could listen to the member for Kennedy all day—and you know that I would, my friend—unfortunately, I need to wrap things up in terms of the industry portfolio. We do have a very energetic agenda in our space on industry. To be honest, coming in as a new government, it's driven by a simple proposition: 'Let's get moving.' There are a lot of things that we think, post those first lockdowns and post the initial waves of the pandemic, put enormous pressure on industry, plus what's happening in the world and in our trading systems. We're thinking about different ways of getting things done onshore so that we are able to deal with supply chain vulnerabilities and the critical things we need are there at the times that we need them. We can also play a part in the global value chain and global supply chains as well. It gives us a lot of opportunity to build up industry capability in this country.
The reason we do it, in many respects, is to provide long-term secure jobs. In manufacturing, if you look at the types of jobs that are generated, 80 per cent of them are full-time, well-paying jobs. With the types of things that we want to do—things like the National Reconstruction Fund, the Buy Australian Plan and the reforms to government procurement—we want to be able to build that capacity, as I said, and put it to work across different areas. The thing that we deal with most in this space is that when you talk about manufacturing people have a view in their minds that it's old school—smokestacks, big gears and lines of people working away. But manufacturing has evolved. As a capability across different areas, it has evolved.
We're looking at delivering higher value-add in resources and agriculture, both being big pillars of our economy longer term, but we also look at medical science; we look at transport; we look at what's happening with respect to energy—low emissions technology, renewable technology, some of which was touched on by some of the speakers here today—and the defence industry. We're looking at emerging capabilities and critical technologies as well. All that manufacturing capability across those areas offers the men and women of this country jobs that will be secure and long term and will contribute something not just to the economy but to the nation's wellbeing.
Within this budget, we put a down payment on the National Reconstruction Fund, and we'll be releasing further details of that shortly. In terms of the Buy Australian Plan and reforms to government procurement, we're looking to see how we open up government contracts to business here. We also made targeted investments in regional manufacturing through $111.3 million to stimulate and support regional manufacturing capabilities. With the member for Blair, who is here today, I visited some of that work in the medical space in his—
Mr Burnell interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: Oh, it's the member for Spence now. He's transformed—we've developed that manufacturing capability as well! We are looking in different parts of the country at supporting that. If I may, Deputy Speaker Ananda-Rajah, reflect on people who will lift manufacturing capability in renewables, I recall the group that are involved in wave energy generation, which you set up, and I was very interested to meet with them. It's not just in terms of alternative forms of energy generation but also all the stuff that goes in it from cement to steel, from fabrication and manufacturing to assembly. All that work will not only help us in the longer term to move towards net zero but it also provides sustainable work in the longer term.
In the remaining time I have—because I know my colleagues here are itching to speak on their portfolio areas and all the good things our government's doing in that space—I want to address one thing. The government treats this process seriously. When we were in opposition, we sat there as shadow ministers and we questioned ministers and we stayed to actually hear the answers. It appears the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow industry minister, and the shadow minister for science want to be able to fling accusations and make all sorts of claims but not be held to account for the dismal performance of the previous government, which we have to deal with on coming into government. We have to clean up their mess and also have a longer term view about what needs to be done.
In particular, their Modern Manufacturing Initiative, seemed like a great idea on paper. However, of that massive $1.5 billion investment which could have lifted capability, 85 per cent was spent in the weeks leading into the election. It was announced two years earlier, but the bulk of it was spent leading into election. This is the decrepit and very shabby way in which those opposite deal with industry policy in this country. I'm not going to respond to their questions because, frankly, if they can't be bothered to stay here to hear the answers then that's the respect with which they should be treated.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Education Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $264,668,000
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (11:42): The budget delivers on the government's election commitments, and in particular the government's plan for cheaper child care, funding for schools, the mental health and wellbeing of Australian students and more than 20,000 more university places for areas of skills shortage.
As members would know, the cheaper childcare legislation passed through all stages of the parliament this morning. It comes into effect on 1 July next year, and it will cut the cost of early childhood education and care for more than a million Australian families. That's a good thing. It will help families with the cost of living and it will help parents, especially mothers, get back into the workforce, and to work more paid days and work more paid hours, and get more skilled workers back into the workforce.
As part of that legislation that passed through the parliament today, the government is also providing a minimum level of 36 hours per fortnight of subsidised early childhood education and care to Indigenous children to help meet the Closing the Gap targets for early childhood education and development. I thank both sides of the House and all members of the parliament for their support, in particular, of this measure. Evidence that came out only a couple of months ago showed that the developmental readiness of Indigenous children has gone backwards over the last four years, demonstrating quite clearly the need for us to act here. I think increasing from 24 hours to 36 hours is just the start, if we want to make sure that all of our children are developmentally ready to start school. If they're not, then we've got to take steps like this.
The next step is the ACCC inquiry into childcare costs. That kicks off in January, and we'll get their interim report in June. Next year we'll also kick off a big and broad review of early education and care, which will be done by the Productivity Commission.
In the budget we're also making a record investment in school education. The budget is supporting schools through extra investments in infrastructure and the mental health and wellbeing of students. In particular, the government will invest about $271 million over the next two years in a Schools Upgrade Fund to improve school facilities. The first round of that funding will open shortly.
We are also investing $200 million to help students bounce back from the mental health and wellbeing impacts of COVID. I am sure I share this view with all members of parliament who talk to schoolteachers and school principals: the aftershocks of COVID are still with us. We hope that the worst of the pandemic is behind us, but we're still see its impact in our classrooms. To that end, that fund will help every school in the country. On average, depending on the population of the school and the need, every school will get about $20,000. That can go towards things like counsellors and psychologists and also things like camps and school excursions—the sort of things that will help to bring children together and have a bit of fun, apart from anything else, after the last couple of years. That funding will roll out next year.
A couple of weeks ago I also released the Draft National Teacher Workforce Action Plan. That includes a number of measures for which there is funding set out in the budget, including $159 million to train more teachers as part of the additional 20,000 university places announced recently; $56 million for scholarships or bursaries worth up to $40,000 to encourage our best and brightest to become teachers; $68 million to triple the number of midcareer professional shifting into teaching; $10 million to boost personal development; $10 million on a campaign to raise the status of the teaching profession; and $25 million on a teacher workload reduction fund to trial new ways for states and territories to reduce the workload on teachers and maximise their time to teach. That draft plan is out for consultation now.
It also includes a number of measures that fall out of the Quality Initial Teacher Education Review that was commissioned by the former minister and done by Lisa Paul, a former secretary of the department and somebody held in high regard by all of us in this Chamber. A number of initiatives that came out of that have made their way into this draft national teacher action plan. As I said, it's out for consultation at the moment, and we've had so far about 300 submissions, mostly from teachers and principals. I would encourage anybody who might be tuning into consideration in detail to have a look at it and tell us what you think. Tell us what's right about it and tell us what's not right about it. Give us your feedback. I will have a little bit more to say about that a little later on.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (11:47): The minister just said that this budget delivers on their election commitments. As you can see, there weren't many election commitments in the Education portfolio from the Labor Party. They only had nine years to work them up. They came up with four—no disrespect to this minister, who came in very late and was a bit of a surprise package announced by Prime Minister Albanese, putting aside Tanya Plibersek, who was the responsible shadow minister for so many years. There were four, and he has just outlined those four.
I would like to focus on just one or two of them, but before doing so, could I raise a very pressing matter I have written to the education minister about. The reason it is so pressing is that it concerns our universities being clear and transparent to students about what sort of course they are going to get when they enrol at university next year. Is it going to be online? Is it going to be face to face? What proportions and how many hours are there likely to be of each? We all know that during the COVID period everybody shifted to online. Fair enough; we understand that. Some people prefer online. But students ought to know what they are going to get when they enrol in a course so they can make a proper selection. I've written to the minister in relation to this because the universities themselves aren't taking responsibility and providing that information to year 12 graduates. I would like to see the minister himself put that pressure on the universities for them to deliver upon it, because his response says it will just be dealt with by the accord, which is frankly too late. Year 12s are making decisions now, and I would like to see action taken in relation to that.
I want to raise the issue of the 20,000 places, which the minister mentioned in his remarks and is indeed mentioned in the budget papers. The language in the budget papers was changed from '20,000' places to 'up to 20,000' places. My concern is that many of these 20,000 spots will, in fact, be the re-use of the 100,000 new places the coalition government put in place. My question to the minister is: can you guarantee that these are 20,000 new places on top of the 100,000 places the former government set aside and announced? As I said, the language in the budget papers has changed. I think he should be transparent because 'up to 20,000' places could, in fact, be only 10,000 places or only 5,000 places. They promised 20,000 places, and we want to make sure that they deliver on their promise.
The 20,000 places, which the minister says that he has announced in the budget, are geared towards lower SES students and Indigenous students because they are unrepresented in the tertiary sector. It's a fine ambition to have more low SES people and Indigenous people in the tertiary sector, an ambition shared across the parliament and certainly shared by the coalition. My concern is that it's one thing to get people through the door; it's another to get people to stick and actually graduate. We know there have been problems with high dropout rates, which are higher amongst low SES and Indigenous students than there are on average. We don't want to see people coming through the door and getting a high HECS debt but not getting the qualification. So they end up with HECS debt with no qualification, which doesn't necessarily help anyone. My question is: will he commit to putting more money into the Indigenous Regional Low SES Attainment Fund, which is a fund specifically geared towards helping those students get through their studies and having the best chance of graduating and getting that degree or certificate at the end of the day? That would be a good initiative.
Finally, I want to say that the teacher initiatives that were announced in the budget are strongly supported by the coalition. They did indeed come out of the work of the initial teacher education review, which I commissioned when I was minister. There are some very good recommendations coming out of that. I'm pleased that the government is taking them up, and I hope they'll see them fall through.
Dr ALY (Cowan—Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth) (11:52): My colleague the Minister for Education has spoken about the budget commitments to early childhood education. I'll talk a little bit about them and then about some other areas of early childhood, the other portfolio of youth and the budget commitments. Suffice it to say, on early childhood education the Albanese government has put the education of our youngest Australians at the heart of its first budget, with a $4.5 billion investment in early childhood education and care, through the legislation that passed the Senate last night. I am very proud to have worked with my colleague Minister Clare on these landmark reforms. We recognise it's an investment in our most precious resource, our children. As the minister mentioned, it will make early childhood education care more affordable for over 1.2 million families.
We know that the first five years of a child's life are absolutely vital to their future success and future development both in health and in education. Our investment will also help services in disadvantaged, vulnerable and regional communities to provide high-quality early education and increase the number of children that can access vital early years education.
Upsettingly, for the first time this year, the Closing the Gap target for school readiness developmental outcomes have worsened. This is simply unacceptable, and we recognise that we need to be doing better and turning this around. That's why the budget also includes funding to ensure that First Nations children will be able to gain access to 36 hours of subsidised early childhood education and care per fortnight. Added to that, we've also announced a $10.2 million fund to support the establishment of the new early childhood care and development policy partnership between Australian and state and territory governments and First Nations representatives. The partnership will be co-chaired by SNAICC and ensure that First Nations members are partners in the process. It is absolutely essential that all governments work together in partnership with First Nations people if we are indeed to close the gap and improve outcomes in early childhood education for First Nations communities.
That's why I'm also excited to be leading the Early Years Strategy along with the Minister for Social Services, Minister Rishworth, ensuring that there is a coordinated approach to the first five years of a child's life. By making early childhood education more affordable, we're ensuring more children can access the benefits of foundational years education, no matter what their background is or where they live. The Early Years Strategy will build on that. It includes education but also a whole range of other areas which impact on young children's wellbeing. Again, it is testament to this government's commitment to recognising those first five years of a child's life as absolutely critical to their success later in life and recognising the need for investment in the first five years of the child's life.
Moving onto the youth portfolio, if I may, the budget also includes an investment of $10.5 million to ensure that Australian youth have input on the issues that matter to them. That $10.5 million will fund a new youth engagement model to ensure that there are meaningful opportunities for young Australians to have a say. In addition, over the forward estimates there is $7 million to establish the Office for Youth; $1.4 million for five youth advisory groups to work directly with Australian government agencies on policy and program development; $483,000 for the development of a youth engagement strategy to be delivered in 2024; and $1.5 million for the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition to support its critical role in youth advocacy, engagement and research.
This is a significant shift from the previous government, who abolished the Australian Youth Forum in 2013—a clear indicator that they are not interested in engaging young people, they're not interested in what young people have to say and they think that they can develop policies that impact on young people without ever consulting young people. We take a different approach on this side. That's why we've made a significant investment in ensuring that young people have a voice and have a say. We can be the best government that we can be by including their voices in how we develop policies and legislation that affect them. We have a budget that begins to build the better, fairer future that the Australian people deserve, including our youngest Australians.
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (11:58): Over the last couple of months I've spoken in great detail about the government's cheaper child care bill, and my colleagues and I have asked hundreds of questions of this government regarding their plan, and we're still yet to receive any real answers, even though the bill has now passed through all of its processes as of this morning. We've spent hours in the chamber, in the Senate inquiry, in Senate estimates and on the floor of the other place trying to get any information at all out of this government on how this policy will deliver for families who need it most. All we've learned is that Labor has no real implementation plan, just statements and numbers. Labor has no plan, certainly, to address any of the rising costs or to address the lack of access for families, particularly in regional and remote areas around our country. This bill does not at all address that big problem, a huge problem, for the nine million Australians who live in a childcare desert. There's no plan to address the current workforce concerns. The coalition have been very strong about outlining exactly how they are going to fix that particular plan. There have been a few grand statements, again, but no actual implementation plan.
Let me be clear: on our side, we believe in choice for families and we believe Australian families should be able to make their own choices for their children in their best interests. We also believe in ensuring that working families who need care can access it. This, of course, is a big problem for many of my National Party colleagues who live in regional and remote Australia, which is why the opposition has not opposed this bill. I'll repeat that for the benefit of the Prime Minister who, when the bill was introduced to the parliament, didn't quite hear—perhaps he misheard, like the Treasurer—or didn't quite acknowledge or understand what I said at the dispatch box, which was that the opposition will not oppose this bill and will not stand in the way of any additional support for working families, but that doesn't mean we don't have very real concerns that the costs will blow out and that it won't deliver what the government has promised, because they simply haven't done the work around this bill.
The coalition does have a strong record when it comes to delivering access for families. Under our government, there were 280,000 more children accessing early childhood education. Under Labor's policy, there's a huge concern from many in the sector that there are not enough places for the additional children that may flood the system on 1 July next year. As I said, nine million Australians live in a childcare desert. That is nine million Australians who, if they have a child, will not be better off under this policy because they can't access care through this bill. It makes perfect sense to us on this side. They can't access one extra place. We've asked the government time and again what their plan is to address these concerns and increase access in those areas, and they've come back with nothing—zero. It's $4.7 billion in taxpayer money, and not one extra place has been created for Australian families. This is disappointing news.
They've pointed to the Community Child Care Fund on a number of occasions, but there is no funding for the next grant round in the October budget, nor is there any information on when the next round will open, except 'shortly'. So we've asked the government how many more educators will be needed in the sector to meet the increased influx of children from 1 July. Again, there has been no answer—just waffling speeches about TAFE and university places. Out-of-pocket childcare costs came down 4.6 per cent in the year to June 2022, thanks to the changes we made when we were in government. In contrast, Labor has, of course, always believed that your money is their money. But Labor have changed the price tag of this policy, and this is where I come to my question. The price tag has changed five times now. First, it was $5.4 billion, then it went to $5.1 billion and then it was $4.5 billion. Now they've settled on $4.7 billion, and I read in a story in the media yesterday by the minister that it was $5 billion. So I ask the minister: Which is it? What is the price tag on this policy? Is it likely to blow out? Is it likely to bring down costs for families around Australia? Has the government done the modelling on that? I ask that because Labor, as we know, do the bare minimum when it comes to any work on these grand ideas that they have—no GDP modelling, no attendance or behavioural change modelling. Again, we've heard nothing from this government. So I ask: With no real plan to implement this policy, how can you expect to deliver on all the promises you made to Australian families before the last election? What is the actual cost of this policy to the budget?
Ms SITOU (Reid) (12:03): I do welcome the shadow minister for education's interest in the student experience for those at university. It's just a shame that he didn't show that level of interest during his time as minister, because under his watch—actually, he was benched for much of that time, so maybe not under his watch. Under the coalition's watch, 14,000 jobs were lost in the university sector. If we are to improve our student experience in the university sector, you would think it would be important to have good teachers and researchers in front, making sure that they are getting good quality education. But, unfortunately, under their watch, 14,000 jobs were lost.
I know the power of education, particularly higher education. I've got a story to tell you, Shadow Minister. There is a 90-second video on YouTube that is the most moving example of the power of education to change lives. It chronicles the extraordinary life of Deng Adut, from being a child soldier in South Sudan to becoming a defence lawyer and refugee advocate in Western Sydney. The turnaround in his life was possible because of his time at Western Sydney University, where he studied law. Deng co-founded a law firm and uses his legal expertise to support Sudanese youth as a defence lawyer, performing much of his work pro bono. He also founded the John Mac Foundation to provide higher education scholarships for students from refugee backgrounds.
Deng's story demonstrates the power of higher education to change lives, and it's clear higher education needs to be central in any narrative around the Australian ideal of egalitarianism. And yet, for too long, where you live, your family background and whether you are Indigenous are still factors in whether you graduate from university. More than 43 per cent of Australians aged between 25 and 34 have a bachelor's degree, but that halves for those from a low socioeconomic background and for those living in regional Australia. For Indigenous Australians, less than 10 per cent have a bachelor's degree. If higher education is the great equaliser in an unequal world, there's more for us to do to improve it, and that's why I'm so supportive of the important work that the federal Minister for Education is doing to support student equity in higher education. We have allocated an additional 20,000 university places in areas of skill shortage, with an emphasis on places for underrepresented students. This is important not only for these students; it's also important for our economy, because 90 per cent of the jobs of the future will require post-school qualifications, and 50 per cent of new jobs are expected to require a bachelor's degree or higher. To improve productivity in this country, we need to make the most of the talents here.
I'm really pleased the minister has also tasked a group of eminent Australians from the university sector, industry and government to develop the Australian Universities Accord. The accord will set out a long-term plan for Australia's higher education system. It will look at how this sector can meet the needs of students across all stages of lifelong learning and develop the skills needed now and in the future. And, critically, the accord will examine how to improve access to higher education across teaching, learning and research. As the Prime Minister has often said, the Labor Party is at its best when it is pushing open those doors of opportunity. On this side of the House, we know that there is talent to be found everywhere in this country, across the regions, the suburbs and the cities. The nation's greatest asset is its people. As we confront the many challenges of this century, we should be grateful to know that there's talent, grit and skill in abundance. But we also know the doors of opportunity aren't always open to people in the same way. Opportunity isn't dispersed equally across this country. Whether by birth, class or disability, there are other factors at play that would seek to hold back our nation. So this accord will look at reforms to support greater access and participation for students from underrepresented backgrounds, because the great and enduring task of this government is to widen those doors of opportunity, and that's what this accord does, in the best tradition of the Australian Labor Party—because, the Australian story is one where a child soldier from South Sudan can work hard and build a life for himself here.
Ms LE (Fowler) (12:08): Education, as many in the House would agree, is the key to success and a passport for our future. When my mother chose Australia as a settlement country while we were in Hong Kong refugee camps, she told me this was because Australia had the best education system in the world, and that it would guarantee my sisters and me a future. Over the decades we have witnessed the deterioration of our education system, and the inequality faced by students depending on the postcodes of where they live. One of my constituents, Sonia Vujanic, who's studying at Sydney University and was one of the top five finalists in the Raise Our Voice campaign, wrote this:
Transitioning from an underprivileged school in South West Sydney to an acclaimed Australian university was eye-opening. On one hand, I was wonderstruck by the many newly opened doors of opportunity.
But the paradox remained: I became disillusioned upon realising we have a widening educational gap. From resource inequalities to social barriers, how can such a flourishing nation still experience 'a tail of two schools'?
It is indeed a tale of two schools and two cities. Schools like Bonnyrigg High School and St Johns Park High School, in my electorate of Fowler, are still teaching children in demountables. Bonnyrigg High School has 1,650 students but was built for only 800 students. As a result of the overcapacity, 40 demountables have been built, as the school only has 37 classrooms. During summer, many students have had to sit through sweltering and nauseating heat because their classrooms have no air conditioning. Yet in the other city, a private school like the prestigious King's School in north-west Sydney is under investigation for installing a plunge pool for the headmaster and purchasing business-class tickets for staff to attend a regatta in England. No wonder the youth of Fowler feel so let down and disillusioned by our education system.
For a government that claims to be the government for working class Australians and a party that promises equality for all, why is the government giving priority to private schools with a promise of $70.2 billion over the forward estimates when we have a public school system that is literally falling apart at the seams? That is $1.7 billion more than the Morrison government guaranteed in March this year. We've been told it's indexation, and that the government has also provided $1 billion in funding for the public school sector, but this is not enough justification to close the gap between the most disadvantaged and the most privileged.
This year's report on government services showed that 82 per cent of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds attended a public school, and nearly 30 per cent of them did not complete year 12 in 2021. That extra $1.7 billion could be used to make huge improvements to the public school system, including better infrastructure for disadvantaged students, more resources for those from refugee and migrant backgrounds and addressing the workforce shortages to alleviate pressure on the hardworking teachers of Fowler. Of course the government will say that the $70.2 billion is allocated for private schools and that there is a separate state budget for public school education. I would ask the governments, both state and federal, to work together to find equitable funding to ensure our public schools are not left behind. According to a Save Our Schools report the average funding level of a public school in New South Wales is just under 88 per cent of the school resourcing standard. In contrast, New South Wales private schools are generally overfunded, with the average level of funding being nearly 106 per cent. Both levels of government must think long and hard about where they spend our taxpayers' money. The future of Australian depends on it.
I'm not against private schools. They form an important part of our community and they help cultivate the fabric of life and education for many multicultural communities. Of course, I would welcome additional funding measures that would assist my local independent schools, who are in need of additional resources too. We need more transparency on the private school funding system because we all can agree not all schools are the same. We have an increasing gap of inequality, and I would think this government more than others would be supportive of enabling fairer, more equitable and more transparent resourcing that would benefit all Australian children. In the words of Sonia: 'If we aren't breaking stagnant intergenerational cycles of disadvantage, then what is our parliament really accomplishing? How will we ever build the tolerant, resilient society that future generations deserve?'
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (12:13): I thank all members for their contribution to this short but important debate about what I think is the most important topic we can talk about: education, the most powerful cause for good in this country. You'd expect me to say that, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care will probably suggest something different in a moment.
Genuinely, thank you for your important contributions, starting with the member for Fowler. You've got the great privilege of representing one of the greatest parts of this country, including where I went to school—Cabramatta Public School and Canley Vale High School. I get exactly what you say. I'm on the record that a plunge pool for principal doesn't pass the pub test. I want to make sure that we're investing in the schools that need it the most, and we've made a commitment to set all schools on a path to 100 per cent of their full and fair funding. The NAPLAN data that came out recently, which I said was pretty good, considering that Sydney and Melbourne were in lockdown for much of the last couple of years, did tell us one thing that is important, that may be underlined here. If you look at NAPLAN over the last 14 years, you see the reading skills of primary school students today, compared to primary school students 14 years ago, are about a year ahead. That's pretty terrific. But if you dig a bit deeper and have a look at the reading skills of children from poor backgrounds and children from wealthier backgrounds, you see that that gap is growing. What we do there really, really matters. I've said publicly I want that to be the focus or one of the focuses of the next national schools reform agreement because it will help children in my electorate, which is next door to your electorate, Member for Fowler. I care about this deeply, and it's what we do here that can make the world of difference in making sure that children in our electorates and places like it across the country get to university and get to build a career, a family, a business and everything that comes from that.
The member for Moncrieff talked about the cost. Maybe the short answer to that is to go to page 17. The $4.5 billion is the net cost when you take into account the integrity measures, but it sets out in the footnotes exactly why the $4.7 billion figure is there. You talked about workforce. There are a couple of points that are important to make here. There are more people in the early education sector today than there were come the time of the election, about 6,000 more. That's a good thing, but that doesn't mean there's enough. There is still a real shortage. You said there's not a plan. That's not right. The former government and the former minister developed a plan. I'm sure the former minister wouldn't make that point, because he knows that the plan was developed by the former government. We're implementing it, so don't undermine the member for Aston.
Mr Tudge: Thanks, Jason. I appreciate it!
Mr CLARE: I'm looking after you, brother! But on top of that we've got to do more.
We need more people getting qualifications as early childhood education teachers and as educators through the fee-free TAFE places. Skilled migration is part of that as well. State governments have got an important role to play—you might have seen recent announcements by the Victorian and New South Wales governments here. That's important, as is paying our early educators better. In the Liberal Party's comments in the Senate report on the legislation, they talked about workforce, but they didn't talk about paying our early educators more. It's the big silence in the Liberal Party. They never want to see anyone paid more. Multi-employer bargaining, which is part of the workplace relations legislation, is a key part of helping to attract and retain more people in this sector.
In the time I've got left, I will mention that the shadow minister—the former Minister for Education and Youth—talked, importantly, about a couple of things. He mentioned COVID and the short- and long-term impacts it's having on students. He focused on universities, but it's just as right to talk about schools.
Mr Tudge: Those were very specific points.
Mr CLARE: Yes. As the shadow minister knows and as I've written back to him—I do want the shadow minister to actively engage with the accord team on this, and I'll write to him about this—the terms of reference say:
Examine the challenges faced by domestic and international students and staff due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the temporary and permanent impacts on the way the higher education sector works.
That is deliberate there. I know you have a sincere interest in this, and I want you to engage with the panel on this issue and the broader impact that it's having across the sector.
You also asked a question about the 20,000 places and people from underrepresented groups. You make a really important point, Shadow Minister, that their completion rates are lower than others. About 70 per cent of people who start a degree finish it; it's about 60 per cent for people from low SES backgrounds, from the bush or from Indigenous backgrounds. The program you identified is one of a number that are important. HEPPP is another, and enabling programs are important as well. And there is another terms of reference that we really need to look at carefully here, because I want more people from underrepresented groups to go to uni and I want more of them to complete their university degrees.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Health and Aged Care Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $3,523,488,000
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Minister for Health and Aged Care and Deputy Leader of the House) (12:18): I'm pleased to rise to say a few words and take some gentle probing questions about the health budget for 2022. In the election in May, Labor, in the health and aged care area, promised three main things: the first was to strengthen Medicare, the second was to deliver cheaper medicines and the third was to fix the crisis in aged care. In the October budget, we delivered on all three of those promises. Members on our side and, I suspect, members on the other side will be regularly told by their constituents that it has never been harder for them to find a doctor, it's never taken longer to get in to see their GP and it's never been more expensive. We know that to be the case. The data reflects the anecdotal evidence that I know all members of parliament are getting. It's particularly acute in rural and regional Australia, but it has crept right through our cities. The structural challenges in general practice go way beyond the pressures of the pandemic, although, of course, the pandemic has placed enormous pressure on primary care, as it has on all other areas of the health system: the acute sector, mental health, aged care and so many others besides.
The Labor government has no higher priority in the health portfolio than rebuilding general practice. It has suffered nine years of cuts and neglect. Before the beginning of the pandemic it was already experiencing enormous pressure. On top of those two structural pressures, the funding crisis and the pandemic, there is a background of demographic change in patients, with an ageing population and a much higher incidence of complex chronic disease, which is the third major structural pressure on general practice.
Strengthening Medicare was the centrepiece of the policy we took to the last election, and we delivered on that centrepiece in the October budget. To their credit, the former government and the former minister, to whom I paid credit on a number of occasions as his shadow, set up a long process that brought in the AMA, the college of GPs and many other experts besides to develop a 10-year primary care plan that was released in March alongside the last budget of the former government. That was a good thing. Broadly speaking, I think there's a strong consensus that that plan is the right pathway forward for primary care and general practice in particular. The problem was that there was no money attached to it. There had been $468 million previously allocated to the implementation of primary care reform, particularly voluntary patient enrolment, but it was ripped away in the March budget by the former government, which had put it in place to underpin its plans. We committed money at the election. We allocated that money in the October budget to invest in the reforms prioritised by the sector from that 10-year primary care plan. At the moment I'm chairing the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce, which meets again on Friday, to prioritise the things that are really important to take that pressure off general practitioners and deliver the accessible quality care that patients deserve. We'll be doing that over the coming months.
This budget also allocated $229 million in infrastructure grants for general practice. General practice deserves more than our thanks for the extraordinary contribution it has made to keeping our community healthy and safe over the course of the pandemic. They need some support to upgrade their IT systems and to make changes to their practice that make their practice more accessible to their local community. We'll be rolling that out in the coming months as well.
There's an incredibly exciting First Nations health package that I was delighted to be able to announce with the now member for Lingiari in her community in Alice Springs during the election campaign. We worked very closely with NACCHO in particular. It will deliver more Aboriginal health workers and Aboriginal health practitioners to a sector that desperately needs those workers. It will invest in much-needed dialysis capacity, with 30 new four-chair dialysis units through the country, double the number of communities that get directed support for rheumatic heart disease—a disease that, frankly, should not be present in a developed country like Australia—and much more besides. I'm really looking forward to being able to implement this budget. It will make a difference to the Australian community.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:23): I thank the minister for his comments, and I will proceed with my gentle, probing questions. Our world-class healthcare system is relied upon by all Australians to ensure their safety and wellbeing. Nobody in this building disagrees with that. It is, therefore, critically important that the Albanese government continues the coalition's track record of investing record funding into Australian health care and ensuring the sector's continued viability into the future. However, despite Labor making health and aged care their headline platform during the election, the Albanese Labor government's budget is, unfortunately, further proof that we don't have the important detail.
It's clear that the pandemic will have a significant and ongoing impact on Australia's healthcare system. Elective surgeries have been deferred for almost three years, and a concerning number of screenings and check-ups have been delayed due to COVID over this period. Yet the government's budget makes it clear that they do not have a plan to address these issues. There is no mention in the budget of the critical impact this will have on our hospital system and no measures that are specifically targeted at alleviating these pressures. In fact, the budget removes any additional support provided to our healthcare system to assist with the increased pressures of COVID from the end of this year. That support that was there, that support that is still needed, has been removed. Does that mean Mr Albanese has received advice that the impact of the pandemic will no longer be felt by our hospital system after this year? If he does have such advice, it should be shared with the Australian public by this government that was elected on a platform of transparency.
What's even more concerning is the $2.4 billion reduction in hospital funding to the states and territories contained in the government's budget over the next four years. This is despite Finance Minister Gallagher's acknowledgement that the government is expecting that demand for hospital services will continue to grow as we normalise back into a post-COVID world. In the same budget paper that includes the funding decrease, Budget Paper No. 1, the government has also acknowledged that there will be expected growth in the assistance to states for public hospitals largely reflecting anticipated growth in the volume of services, yet this is not reflected in the $2.4 billion reduction in assistance that is provisioned in the budget. Minister, if the government knows that demand for hospital services is expected to continue to grow over the forward estimates, why have you not provisioned for additional funding in the budget? I can only be left to assume that it's purely an accounting trick to help the Treasurer with his budget bottom line.
I want to talk about urgent care clinics. On the topic of assisting our hospital system with increased pressures, Labor points, as they should, to their urgent care clinics election commitment. This is another measure that falls into this emerging trend of making an announcement with no detail to underpin and demonstrate its implementation. Minister, how is your government addressing concerns that the clinics are likely to fragment care? Can you provide any reassurance that these clinics won't add to the workforce pressures that are being experienced across Australia, particularly in rural and regional Australia?
On the eve of the election, Senator Gallagher made a commitment that the clinics would be delivered in six months time. It was confirmed in budget estimates that the government is still promising this deadline to the Australian public. However, the inability of Minister Gallagher to even provide the locations of the urgent care clinics in budget estimates has left us with absolutely no confidence that this delivery will be met. Minister Gallagher even admitted that there is still work to do to improve the urgent care clinic policy model. So, Minister, can you confirm when these clinics will be up and running, considering that the policy has not even been finalised? I note that one of those clinics is in my hometown of Albury. Please put it to the top of the list. It mightn't be the best solution for public patients and emergency waiting rooms, but we would welcome anything additional in rural and regional Australia. I sincerely hope that the government's intention to deliver the urgent care clinics within the next six months is not just an aspirational target from the Albanese government, because Australians cannot afford more headline commitments which don't deliver genuine outcomes.
Considering the small number of urgent care clinics that have been announced across the country relative to the size of the issues facing our healthcare system, I am also interested to know whether the government is considering any further measures to address the increased pressure on our hospitals. Right now, Australia's healthcare system and its hardworking workforce needs certainty that they will be supported. Once again, we aren't seeing much beyond the headline announcements, and we really need details and a plan to address the real issues. So, Minister, what is the government's plan to support the healthcare sector throughout this period of increased pressure?
Dr ANANDA-RAJAH (Higgins) (12:28): I may be among the most qualified people in this Chamber today to speak about the health system. I lived and breathed it for 26 years. The reason I stand in this Chamber, though, is that I could not turn away from the unmet needs of my healthcare colleagues at the start of this pandemic. It breaks my heart to see what has happened to our health system, and it is thanks to nine years of neglect and the set-and-forget mentality of those opposite who failed to implement the necessary reforms and investment in workforce and infrastructure. Then, of course, along came a public health crisis. There is always going to be a public health crisis, and in this case it was the pandemic. It was the ultimate pressure test. What we are seeing now is the effects of this crisis on a health system that was already struggling but is now on its knees. Only last week, in Victoria, I learned that another 20 per cent of nurses have actually left the profession. That is unacceptable. We just cannot replace these professionals fast enough.
On the front line, I saw and heard their call, their cries and their desperation. I heard this in Cabrini, a major private hospital in my electorate, as well as at the Alfred. In fact, there are health professionals who work in both of those places. That's what they do. It's a mobile workforce; we move around. They told me that during the pandemic in the early years they were abused, they were hushed up and they were gaslighted—I heard a bit of gaslighting just now. What it did was light a fire in me that burns still. Healthcare workers demanded better. They wanted masks, they wanted fit-testing—where the masks actually fit their face—and they wanted transparent reporting. I reached out to both sides of parliament at the time. I'm pleased to say that our current health minister listened. He listened to me, he was curious and he asked the right questions. It was my colleagues working in my electorate who propelled me into this House because they knew that, as a first responder, a researcher and a frontline specialist, I knew the pressures on the health system. I know them acutely and intimately. Their stories were the reason for the season.
In government now, I'm pleased to say I'm surrounded by like-minded colleagues. We have several doctors, we have nurses and we have a pharmacist on our side, and we get it. I'm pleased to say that we regard our healthcare workforce and our aged-care workforce as national assets. They are national assets. They are critical to the functioning of our healthcare system. There is no functioning of our nation without a reliable healthcare system. It must be robust and it must be supported.
We are investing in 50 urgent care clinics. This is a game changer. I worked in one of the busiest hospitals in the country, a hospital that, only last week, our health minister described as a jewel, which it is—the Alfred. Our emergency department is just bursting at the seams. It always has been, but it's worse now. Why? Because people have deferred their care, and they are now turning up with advanced diseases and illnesses—sometimes cancers. There is ambulance ramping and there are people lying in trolleys. My mornings were spent in the emergency department in damage control, basically, trying to get people out and in as quickly as possible. So those 50 urgent care clinics are going to make a real difference. It means that people can turn up with only their Medicare card. They don't need their credit card. That is a real issue in my electorate—people are ringing my office on a daily basis, asking about which clinics actually bulk-bill anymore. You shouldn't need to turn up to an emergency department if you don't have a serious illness. You should be able to go somewhere else. That is what we're delivering.
We're also investing in our health workforce with a national nurse and midwifery health service of $25 million, which is going to look after and protect this national asset. The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce is fantastic. For too long, we have pivoted towards supporting hospitals. Supporting hospitals is important, but let's not forget that our primary-care workforce is actually the backbone of our health system. It takes six years to get through medical school and then another 10 to 15 years to become a specialist, so you're looking at nearly 15 years for a general practitioner to come out. So we need to start that planning now. We're picking up the slack, and we're getting on with it. In addition to that, we're also addressing this maldistribution of doctors from urban environments into the regions with a substantial amount of funding.
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (12:33): I rise to speak on mental health in Australia following the government's recent budget. Mental health and suicide prevention, of course, are a key focus of the opposition, as it is for me. As shadow minister for youth, I understand the enormity of that challenge. The opposition has a strong track record of investing in and prioritising mental health support, whether that be at the youth level, through our expansion of the headspace network, which provides critical mental health and wellbeing support to young people across Australia, including my electorate in Southport, or through our longstanding investments in men's sheds, which connect men in our community and are a powerful tool in addressing their mental health and wellbeing—I've got three of those in my electorate, at Miami, Ashmore and Nerang.
The coalition has a strong record of investing in supports for and research on eating disorders so we can better understand the diseases, enable earlier intervention and encourage more people to seek help so they have the best chance of recovering. I commend all healthcare professionals who work to provide that link between mental health services and schools to facilitate the early recognition of and intervention with depression and related disorders amongst our young people. We must acknowledge the struggles Australian youth face. That is why this new government must continue our legacy of prioritising investment in mental health.
The national study of mental health discovered that almost two in five Australians aged 16 to 24 had been dealing with a mental illness for more than 12 months. To help address these issues, the coalition provided funding to further invest in and expand the role of organisations such as Head to Health and headspace, so as to increase accessibility and the availability of support for young people in those communities. The government must outline its plan to ensure that these communities are able to access the supports they so desperately need.
We on this side understand that the risk of suicide is often highest two to three years after a crisis—a pandemic or a natural disaster such as a flood—and many communities across Australia are now coming to terms with those challenges. Communities across Australia have encountered one challenge after another, it seems. Minister: Are you considering further investment in mental health programs, noting the devastating floods that are currently affecting so many in New South Wales and Victoria? Where in your budget is there additional support for these people to turn to?
It's also critical that young people be at the forefront of these discussions, especially in advising governments of where investment in mental health supports is best placed to achieve real outcomes. That is why I held a local Moncrieff youth roundtable in my office to discuss issues that matter most to young people in my community. Mental health was clearly the biggest issue that they are facing. I heard some very poignant stories from some beautiful young people who came to my office to talk about the top five issues concerning them. Mental health and wellbeing was something that we spent a lot of time talking about as being of great concern to young people on the Gold Coast.
The Albanese government must prioritise mental health and give certainty to the millions of Australians each year who rely on the 20 Medicare-subsidised psychology sessions introduced by the coalition government during the pandemic. Australians have been through multiple disasters and a pandemic, and now there is the compounding impact of the cost-of-living crisis placing additional stress and pressure on mums and dads and families around the country. At a time when Australians need support the most, the government has not provided any certainty in the budget that it will continue the Medicare-subsidised psychology sessions that the coalition doubled in 2020 from 10 session to 20 session. This measure will return to 10 sessions in December unless the government chooses to continue the additional support provided by the coalition, which has been relied on by so many Australians as they seek support when facing these difficult times. Minister: will the Albanese government provide certainty to Australians now and commit to continuing the 20 subsidised sessions that the coalition introduced? It's a very important measure that is relied upon by so many Australians across the country, including families who are facing challenges and mental health difficulties. Or will you be ripping this additional support away from Australians at a time when communities—particularly those in New South Wales and Victoria, but there is also inland flooding in regional and remote Australia—are currently underwater?
Ms MILLER-FROST (Boothby) (12:39): This government inherited an aged-care sector in crisis, an aged-care sector that had faced neglect for almost a decade under the Liberals and Nationals. There were 23 reports, inquiries, and studies and, of course, a royal commission. The recommendations were almost entirely not implemented. The Albanese government's budget starts the process of restoring safety, dignity and quality in aged care. This budget reflects the Albanese government's priority to change aged care for the better and deliver the care that older Australians deserve.
The Albanese Labor government has now addressed 37 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and the budget delivers on 22 of our election commitments. With a total investment of $3.9 billion, we will lift the standard of care for residents of aged-care homes by putting nurses back into nursing homes on site 24/7. We will deliver more carers with more time to care through mandated care minutes and we will work with the Maggie Beer Foundation so that residents have access to better, tastier and more nutritious food. We will deliver increased transparency and accountability in the sector, making sure that public funds go exactly where they're supposed to—on care. We've also committed to funding the pay rise for our valuable and dedicated aged-care workers who, for too long, haven't seen their work valued for what it is—highly skilled and incredibly important.
Our reforms signal our steadfast commitment to meet the challenges facing the aged-care sector. The former government wouldn't, or couldn't, address many of these challenges. Older Australians, their families and the dedicated workers that care for them deserve an aged-care system that delivers safe, high-quality care and a workplace to be proud of, and this budget starts that journey. This budget will help build a stronger aged-care workforce, improve food standards for residents and introduce tougher penalties and transparency measures to protect recipients of aged care from abuse, neglect and exploitation. From 1 July 2023, aged-care residents will benefit from the requirement for aged-care homes to have a registered nurse on site 24/7, reducing unnecessary trips to the hospital. There will also be an increase to the mandatory care time requirements in residential aged-care homes, starting with 200 care minutes, including 40 registered nurse minutes, from 1 October 2023 and 215 care minutes, including 44 registered nurse minutes, from 1 October 2024. The budget includes $2.5 billion to fund these changes to bring in the minimum staffing standards.
An investment of $3.6 million will establish a new national registration scheme for personal care workers to professionalise the workforce. The budget includes $9.9 million to establish an aged-care complaints commissioner to ensure that complaints are properly and thoroughly dealt with and ensure that older Australians and their families have their voices heard. Funding of $38.7 million will establish an inspector-general of aged care to target systemic issues, provide independent oversight of the aged-care system and make recommendations directly to government. The $68.5 million strengthening regional stewardship measure will expand the department's local presence to better lead and respond to aged-care issues on the ground in regional and rural Australia. These regional stewards will be the eyes and ears for aged care, improving the transparency and accountability of the sector in the regions they serve and helping to ensure that older Australians are able to access the aged-care services they need in the communities they live in.
Older First Nations people, older Australians from diverse communities, older people living with dementia and older Australians in regional areas will benefit from $26.1 million of targeted funding for individual aged-care homes. This funding will support the increase to access to culturally safe care that acknowledges the diverse needs of older Australians. Initiatives to progress the in-home aged-care reforms will also be funded in the amount of $23.1 million, including additional consultation and a large-scale trial of a new assessment tool. The Commonwealth Home Support Program will be extended to provide continuity of care for over 800,000 older people who access the program.
My questions to the Minister for Aged Care are: How do the aged-care measures included in the October budget directly benefit older Australians in care? What benefit should older Australians and the wider health system see from the government's measure to introduce 24/7 nurses?
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (12:44): Those of us who live in the bush wouldn't live anywhere else. But the fact is that, if you live in regional, rural or remote Australia, you are likely to be older, sicker and have poorer health outcomes than your city cousins. Access to an adequate healthcare workforce and the services that that brings remains one of the greatest challenges in regional communities today.
One thing that people from the bush generally have in common is that we're a pretty pragmatic bunch. We judge people on what they do rather than what they say. So, if the Minister for Health, Mark Butler, says that the critical shortages of GP graduates in Australia is 'terrifying', we expect that, at the same time, he will offer up solutions to address this issue. Regrettably, the Albanese government's recent budget does not contain a single initiative that responds to the workforce crisis being experienced by rural, regional and remote Australians. Again, Labor is proving to be all talk rather than action.
The government's Jobs and Skills Summit was meant to address this issue, but all it delivered was another talkfest that failed to deliver any real plans. Therefore, I ask the minister: what tangible action is being taken right now to address the real and significant GP workforce shortages, particularly in rural, regional and remote Australia? The only initiative delivered to date has been the expansion of the Distribution Priority Area, DPA, classifications for overseas trained doctors, and that has only managed to make the workforce shortage issues worse.
Historically, the DPA classification has been crucial in addressing GP workforce shortages in the bush. Regrettably, the Albanese government has continued to rub salt into the wounds of rural communities by announcing in the budget that they will expand the DPAs for a further 12 months. This means that rural and regional communities will continue to compete with larger towns and outer-city suburbs for doctors. It makes no sense whatsoever that the remote town of Smithton in my electorate must compete with greater Hobart for doctors because they are both classified as rural.
When asked in Senate estimates if the Albanese government had consulted with rural and regional communities before deciding to expand the DPA classification, Assistant Minister McCarthy confirmed that she was 'not aware of any consultation'. Therefore, Minister, I ask: did the government consult with rural and regional communities prior to the decision to expand DPA classifications, and is the government aware of how many GPs have been lost to rural and regional communities since the initial decision was made?
The aged-care workforce also has critical workforce issues. In spite of this, the Albanese government has brought forward the Fair Work Commission's time line for the implementation of 24/7 registered nurses in aged-care homes. This decision has been taken without providing any immediate support measures to train the registered nurses in the sector. So, Minister, I ask: why was this not represented in the budget? The support provided to address the critical workforce issues experienced in the country will not even scratch the surface. In the minister 's own words:
Without workers, the discussions of care minutes, of improved systems, of returning security and dignity to aged care means little…
Minister, does this mean that the Albanese government's aged-care package requiring 24/7 registered nurses in aged-care homes means little, since they are not supporting the training and introduction of additional registered nurses in the sector? It's all well and good to support aged-care facilities and expect them to afford to meet the 24/7 registered nurse requirement, but there is no point in providing that support if facilities do not have access to the additional workforce to hire these additional nurses in the first place.
When you look at the $2.5 billion aged-care package line by line, it confirms what we already know, and that is that the Albanese government is strong on the headline announcement and it is rather missing out on the detail and the outcome. Finally, Minister, I ask: why is there not a single measure included in the budget to bolster the RN workforce? There are five questions.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Lingiari) (12:49): First Nations people continue to experience a burden of disease that is 2.3 times greater than that of non-Indigenous Australians. Chronic disease causes 64 per cent of this burden. The budget includes funding for 17 critical First Nations health infrastructure projects across country. Investing in primary care infrastructure will improve access to primary care for people in country, closer to home, and avoid the need for this care to be provided in hospitals. Projects spread across Australia include the health facility in Palmerston in the Northern Territory for Danila Dilba Health Service, a new health clinic in Ceduna for Yadu Health and a new build in Bunbury for South West Aboriginal Medical Service.
The government has committed $61.1 million for early intervention and preventative health actions, with a particular focus on chronic disease. The budget includes $45 million to address chronic kidney disease—the leading cause of hospitalisation for First Nations people, particularly in the Northern Territory—delivering up to 30 four-chair renal dialysis units and related water projects. It was great to be with the health minister when we made this announcement. Sites and timing will be worked out in partnership with key First Nations stakeholders. The budget also includes $1.1 million for two dialysis treatment buses in far west New South Wales and $824,000 both for the Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation Aboriginal medical service in New South Wales to expand needed and necessary renal and ECG facilities and for Aboriginal Medical Services Redfern to purchase machines for early detection of cardiovascular health conditions. As the minister said, there is $14.2 million to increase rheumatic heart disease screening, prevention and treatment services, which will be delivered in full partnership with the First Nations health sector.
Improving health outcomes for First Nations mothers and babies is a priority to address the disproportionately adverse perinatal outcomes compared with non-Indigenous mothers and babies. We have committed $22.5 million to Waminda to establish a birthing-on-country centre of excellence. I can say the one on the New South Wales South Coast will be just as good as the one in Alice Springs in the Northern Territory.
The government is committing to building the Aboriginal community controlled health sector and will provide $164.3 million for new and enhanced health facilities across Australia to provide increased and improved access for First Nations people to culturally safe care. Greater health gains or benefits of up to 50 per cent can be achieved if services are delivered through an Aboriginal community controlled health service, or ACCHO. Aboriginal health in Aboriginal hands is the way in which we will make the difference. In 2016, it was estimated that Aboriginal community controlled health services served between one-third to one-half of First Nations populations. The government has listened to the First Nations health experts. We will provide $54.3 million over five years to provide the important 500 traineeships for First Nations people in the Aboriginal community controlled health sector.
The remoteness of communities across the Top End of the Northern Territory means that, for the member for Solomon, for myself and for Senator McCarthy, access to aerial medical services is vital in critical emergency situations. The government is providing funding of $10.1 million in 2022-23 to CareFlight, which will improve access to rescue services and emergency aeromedical transport for injured and sick First Nations Territorians across the Top End of the Northern Territory. Minister, my question is: could you outline how the Albanese government is continuing to work to ensure that health care and infrastructure are delivered for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a culturally safe and appropriate way?
Dr SCAMPS ( Mackellar ) ( 12:54 ): I rise today to speak about the government's health measures in the 2022-23 budget. Health is a human right, and there needs to be equitable access to health care for all Australians. All Australians deserve and want the best in health and health care. They also want a government that is fiscally responsible and invests strategically to ensure value for money and return on investment. The best return on investment is prevention, and taking a long-term view. We need to plan for what we know is on the horizon, whether it be preventable chronic disease, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, preparing for health risks associated with climate change or the GP crisis.
This is the first federal budget that took wellbeing into consideration, but it does not go far enough to invest in the area of prevention of disease. We know that 87 per cent of deaths in Australia are linked to chronic illness, and almost 40 per cent of chronic diseases can be prevented by addressing lifestyle factors. The National Preventive Health Strategy recommends that a target of five per cent of the health budget be dedicated to preventive health. However, this budget does not deliver on that. Most notably, one of the biggest risk factors to many chronic diseases, obesity, isn't addressed. The budget does not mention, let alone invest in, the newly announced National Obesity Strategy. This is a powerful strategy, but it will have no benefit sitting as a pile of papers on the minister's desk.
Australia bore the brunt of our failure to plan for the pandemic, and yet this budget also fails to plan for the ongoing nature of the pandemic. We're in the midst of yet another wave of COVID-19 and we are staring down the barrel of long-COVID impacts. Yet MBS COVID-19 measures are only budgeted to the end of this year. That won't even get us to the next budget. Additionally, the budget fails to recognise the impacts of the pandemic on mental health, including the spike in eating disorders. Many of my constituents are calling for an extension of the additional 10 psychology sessions.
Also worryingly, the budget for public hospitals is $2.4 billion less than forecast in May 2023. Meanwhile, hospitals are at breaking point. One of my particular focuses is advocating for the government to address the GP crisis. If general practice folds, then the entire health system goes down with it. I know that the minister recognises this as a major challenge, however the budget doesn't reflect the measures needed to turn around the current trajectory that will lead to a deficit of 11,000 GPs by 2030—and this is across both rural and urban areas. Measures to increase the Medicare rebate, increase bulk-billing incentive and bolster GP numbers require strategic funding over the forward estimates to drive the required structural change.
Finally, the issue that is recognised by the World Health Organization and the Australian Medical Association as the greatest challenge to human health is climate change. I welcome the establishment of the Centre for Disease Control. It firmly demonstrates that this government recognises the benefits of planning for major public health emergencies in Australia, such as the increased incidence of diseases associated with climate change. It will allow Australia to catch up with the other OECD countries, after years of experts calling for it to be established. The $3.2 million in this budget is small but it will get the ball rolling.
Finally, this government failed to allocate money for one of the greatest issues to come out of the pandemic—eating disorders and the increase in mental health issues. The services in my electorate are struggling, and there is no certainty that the additional psychology sessions will remain—something that many of my constituents have been vocal about. So I ask the minister: What will the government do in upcoming budgets to address the lack of funding for strategic planning commitments such as the National Obesity Strategy, the Centre for Disease Control, ongoing pandemic risks and mental health? When will the government increase the Medicare rebate for GPs and the bulk-billing incentive, to relieve the burden on our struggling primary healthcare system? Will the next budget be a health budget and a true wellbeing budget?
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Minister for Health and Aged Care and Deputy Leader of the House) (12:59): I think there were about 38 questions from the member for Mackellar there. Forgive me for addressing all of the questions in very short order, just to get through as many as I can in my allotted time. I thank all members for their contribution to an area of policy that I know is dear to everyone's heart, because we all know how important it is for our community. As for prevention, as the member for Mackellar may know, it's our intention that the CDC take responsibility for the overall prevention policy. What we've said at this stage, as we engage with states and territories in the sector, is that the CDC will largely be stayed initially looking at infectious diseases, for obvious reasons, given the pandemic, but my vision is for it to play a strong role in noncommunicable diseases and prevention in particular.
I'm talking to groups in the community about the obesity strategy. Again, it's a very good-looking document, but it's not going to change much if we don't find ways to turn it into a funded action plan. I'm very committed to that. I must say that, in the 10 years I've been out of the health portfolio, smoking rates have improved dramatically to the point where they're probably the best in the world; obesity rates have deteriorated dramatically to the point where they are some of the worst in the world. This must be a focus of the health portfolio over the course of this decade.
The member also asked, as did the member for Moncrieff, about better access. I've said in the parliament before that we are looking at that and a range of other COVID related measures that are due to terminate on 31 December. We will have more to say about that in the very near future. The member also asked, as did the member for Farrer, about hospital funding reflected in the budget. As members would know, and certainly the member for Farrer should know, as a former health minister, we have an activity based funding system. We pay according to the bill sent to us by states and territories. Activity has obviously been constrained for a range of reasons associated with the pandemic. A lot of activity was essentially diverted from the end NHRA area of activity into the COVID NPA. That is going to have an impact on the activity they report to the administrator. We simply reflect the numbers given to us from the states.
There will be reconciliation of 2022-23 activity by the hospital funding administrator in early calendar 2023. I think everybody expects hospital activity to rebound, but how it will rebound and how quickly it will rebound is still to be known. If the member for Farrer checked her notes about how hospital funding does work, the states send us the bill, we pay the cheque. We pay 45 per cent of the increase in activity, and that's reflected in our budget papers, as it has been in the last 10 or 11 years since the first ABF agreement was reached. I think they're all the measures that were asked by the member for Mackellar.
I thank the member for Lingiari for her support in developing the First Nations package and her recognition that this is a huge implementation challenge in which she will play such an important role. To the member for Braddon, can I say—as I think was reflected in Tasmanian media this morning—there's a great discussion going on between our government and the Tasmanian Premier about how we can cooperate as two levels of government. I intend to have another discussion with him about that which will cover the whole of the great island of Tasmania. I know the depth of the GP crisis that is in place down there. There is a range of elements to deal with rural general practice in the budget. I encourage the member to look at them. They go to additional funds for innovative models of care. They go to additional workforce incentives for GPs working in rural Australia, particularly with additional skills, like obstetrics, emergency and mental health skills. They go to additional John Flynn training places, a program that's been very successfully rolled out in Tasmania, among other parts of the country. They go to additional Commonwealth supported places for the James Cook University, a terrific university in Far North Queensland. I encourage the member for Braddon to look at them. There was strong consultation around DPA. There was a 12-month Senate inquiry that held hearings, including in Tasmania, that informed the policy that we took to the last election.
To the member for Boothby, can I say that the package that the Minister for Aged Care and Sport—who would have loved to have been with us today—has rolled out through two pieces of legislation already passed through the parliament and in the budget will make a real difference to those older Australians who have worked so hard and have paid their taxes their entire life and built the community that we are so privileged to live in and deserve a better aged-care system than we are currently delivering to them. This budget will make a real difference, and I know that all members will get behind the initiatives we've funded.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Attorney-General's Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $237,162,000
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (13:04): The October budget demonstrates that the Albanese Labor government is getting on with delivering its election commitments, rebuilding trust in government, supporting our most vulnerable people and improving safety. In the 2022-23 October budget the government announced funding of $591.4 million over four years for new measures in my portfolio. We're investing $262.6 million, including $68.8 million per year ongoing, to establish and support the ongoing operation of the independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. This funding will ensure the commission has the resources to properly consider referrals and allegations, conduct timely investigations and undertake corruption prevention and education activities.
Jointly with the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, I also announced in the budget a record $99 million First Nations Justice package aimed at closing the gap. This includes $81.5 million for justice reinvestment initiatives to be delivered in partnership with First Nations communities, including an independent unit to support these programs. There's also $13.5 million for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services to ensure First Nations families can access culturally appropriate and timely legal assistance before, during and after coronial processes. The budget also delivered $11 million for community led initiatives to improve safety in Central Australia.
The government is providing a funding boost of $49.8 million to the Australian Human Rights Commission to help rebuild its functions as Australia's national human rights institution after years of neglect. This includes $10.5 million for the commission to implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report; to implement the positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation; as well as to create a one-stop shop for workplace sexual harassment information. The commission is also receiving $7.5 million to develop a national antiracism strategy and to extend the 'Racism. It Stops with Me' campaign.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will receive $5.5 million to investigate and respond to complaints relating to the Optus ransomware attack. We're investing $22.7 million to enhance the capacity of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to digitally manage evidence. The Australian Federal Police will receive $45.7 million for Pacific security and engagement initiatives, including AFP deployment in Honiara through the Solomon Islands International Assistance Force. The crucial work of the royal commission into the robodebt scheme will be supported with an additional $30 million.
We're also delivering on our election commitment to provide $12 million for Community Legal Centres in New South Wales and Queensland to assist flood and bushfire affected people to access timely legal assistance. Also, $7.7 million over four years from 2023, and $2.4 million per year ongoing, is to be provided for the Federal Circuit and Family Court to enable workers to recover underpayment of wages more easily under the small claims process in the Fair Work Act 2009.
Finally, the government will establish two task forces within the Attorney General's Department to, firstly, scope options to establish a federal judicial commission, and, secondly, to scope the establishment of an anti-slavery commissioner to work with business, civil society and state and territory governments to support compliance with Australia's Modern Slavery Act 2018 and to address modern slavery and supply chains.
With these important budget measures, the job of cleaning up the mess the Liberals left behind is well underway. There is more work to do, but I'm proud that the October budget is already demonstrating this government's commitment to integrity, human rights and safety.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:09): I rise today to seek answers from the Attorney-General regarding unprecedented actions he's taken in the few months since he's taken office. The Attorney-General has intervened in two key proceedings that were underway before Australia's independent judiciary, before the courts had delivered their decisions. He put an end to those independent processes that were on foot, with no adequate justification. One case was before the ACT Supreme Court and the other was before the High Court. Australians deserve answers as to why he has done this and whether the Attorney has confidence in Australia's independent judiciary.
The first matter was the case of Bernard Collaery, a matter that was before the ACT Supreme Court. The Attorney-General's unprecedented action in discontinuing proceedings against Mr Collaery for security related offences is extraordinary and unexplained. Mr Collaery was facing five criminal charges. On the first count, Mr Collaery was facing a conspiracy charge which alleged that he conspired with Witness K to communicate information on matters to the government of Timor-Leste that was prepared by, or on behalf of, ASIS. It's alleged the information came to the knowledge of Witness K by reason of him being, or having been, a staff member of ASIS and that the communication was not made under the ways that would have made it lawful under the Intelligence Services Act. The other four charges were counts of breaching section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act, with Mr Collaery facing allegations that he unlawfully communicated to journalists information that came to him by reason of him having entered into a contract agreement or arrangement with ASIS.
The independent Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, appearing in Senate estimates last October, was asked why the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions continued to prosecute the case against Mr Collaery. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions made clear that decisions about whether or not to prosecute were based on public interest and must not be influenced by factors such as possible political advantage or disadvantage to the government or personal feelings concerning the alleged offender or victim. She stated:
We continue to review matters, whether or not they're in the public interest, and we have determined, on the material known to us and the seriousness of the alleged conduct, that it remains in the public interest to proceed.
But, in July, just weeks after having been appointed, the Attorney-General announced that he was ending the prosecution against Mr Collaery under section 71 of the Judiciary Act. This was an extraordinary and unprecedented step. In fact, it's the only time in Australia's history that this power has been used.
At the most recent Senate estimates, the acting director of public prosecutions told the committee that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was never consulted about the decision to cease proceedings in the Collaery matter. Why, given all the indications from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that it was in the public interest to proceed, did the Attorney-General break with convention and cease this prosecution? What message does this send to people who might deal in Australia's secrets? Why has the Attorney-General chosen to intervene in this matter and not matters involving other whistleblowers? Was it because Mr Collaery was an attorney-general in the ACT Labor government? What does this decision say about the operability of the Intelligence Services Act?
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr LEESER: I can see those opposite are really enjoying these questions. The Attorney-General used powers never before exercised and has been opaque about his reasons. What warranted this action? Did Mr Collaery represent himself to the Attorney-General and make those requests? How many legal activists put pressure on the Attorney-General to make this decision? What public interest has been served by the Attorney-General's intervention here?
The second matter is in relation to the case of Montgomery v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Mr Montgomery was a New Zealand citizen residing in Australia on a visa. After being sentenced to 14 months in prison for aggravated burglary, his visa was cancelled and Mr Montgomery was detained in immigration detention. He claimed that he could not be deported as he'd been culturally adopted by an Aboriginal community, despite having no biological Aboriginal descent. The case followed a previous High Court decision, Love and Thoms, which controversially determined that an Australian who met the definition, under the Mabo case, of Aboriginality, descent, self-identification and community recognition cannot be placed in immigration detention or deported. That was a split decision, 4-3, of the High Court and the law after Love and Thoms was unclear. The Morrison government decided to bring the Montgomery case to the High Court to clarify, following the Love and Thoms decision. The court heard the arguments. It reserved its decision.
The Commonwealth had already expended finance and time bringing the case. Policymakers were looking forward to the clarification about the definition of Aboriginality for the purposes of migration law. But, before the court had delivered its decision, the government decided to revoke the cancellation of Mr Montgomery's visa and then the Attorney-General discontinued the matter. Was the Attorney-General involved in the decision to revoke the visa cancellation? Did the minister for immigration consult with the Attorney-General in making that decision? Why did the government not wait until such time as the court had delivered its decision in the Montgomery case before making a decision about his migration status, particularly given the benefit of clarifying the definition of Aboriginality for the purpose of migration law?
These two extraordinary interventions deserve an explanation, and I call on the Attorney-General to give one to the House.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:14): Attorney-General, as you're well aware, access to justice underpins our legal system, and I congratulate you for the multiple measures announced in the government's October budget that will support access to justice, something I know you cared about way back when you started your legal career in the Northern Territory. Labor has known for over 50 years that it's particularly important that families who need to use the family law system have access to justice.
The scheme introduced in 2019 to protect against cross-examination by a perpetrator of family violence has increased access to justice for many victims of family violence who find themselves entangled in the Family Court system. The prospect of being interrogated by an abuser through cross-examination has caused many victims to abandon their family law applications. In some cases, victims have agreed to unsafe arrangements for themselves and their children just so they do not have to endure the court process and face their abuser directly.
The problem with this scheme, however, was always that it was not properly funded by the previous government since it commenced in 2019. It was a good idea, but it had bad implementation. Put simply, the scheme kept running out of money. We heard in Senate estimates a couple of weeks ago that on at least two occasions in just one jurisdiction the Attorney-General's Department was advised that they would need to suspend taking on any news matters if additional funding was not immediately made available. I've heard of families whose cases were left part heard when representation to prevent direct cross-examination could not continue due to that lack of funding. Those families experienced additional delay and additional stress. Attorney-General, I was very pleased to see additional funding of $52.4 million for this scheme in the October budget. I note that this is the largest single funding injection for this important scheme.
Also, as you are well aware, Attorney-General, the Morrison government inflicted an extensive restructure on the family law system, something I personally think was reprehensible and without any political mandate. It was a craven, sneaky act from a craven, sneaky government. Abolishing the Family Court of Australia was done on the basis of a desktop review, with no credible evidence that it would improve the experience of families using the court system. I know, Attorney-General, that you are carefully assessing those changes to ensure that such a major restructure is achieving its purpose, something I have severe doubts about.
The court itself has introduced some innovative measures to improve the experience of families using the court system. One is the Lighthouse Project, a family safety risk-screening and specialised case management pilot for matters involving family violence. Attorney-General, I was very pleased to hear the announcement in the October budget that the government is providing more than $24 million over three years to increase the capacity of legal aid commissions to support the national expansion of the Lighthouse Project from three to 15 family law registries of the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia. Obviously, providing legal assistance at an early stage of family law proceedings will increase access to justice, but it will also ensure court resources are used efficiently.
Attorney General, as you are also well aware, my electorate of Moreton was heavily impacted by floods in 2011 and again in February this year. There were 2,200 homes that had floorboards covered by water, and many businesses were destroyed. While the water has been mopped up and the piles of destroyed possessions have been taken away, the trauma will endure for those families for a very long time. What is not visible in the images flashing across our television screens during such disasters is the often complicated legal consequences that follow. People have lost everything, including their legal documents. Legal advice in the weeks and months after such an event is crucial, I would suggest. Attorney General, the Albanese government's election commitment of $12 million to boost funding for legal assistance in areas that were affected by floods in 2022 will help those in my community who are still struggling with the legal impact of the February floods. I commend you for that commitment, which will provide increased access to justice in my community and other communities in Queensland and northern and western New South Wales that have been hit by these disasters.
As I said at the start, access to justice underpins our legal system. It is also the core tenet of our modern democracy. I know that, as Attorney-General and the first law officer, you are committed to providing access to justice. So, Attorney General, can you tell us how you're going to further increase access to justice for the constituents of Moreton?
Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (13:19): I have three key questions for the Attorney-General. The first is in regard to the Safer Communities Fund, which I note from the budget was defunded in the current budget. I note that the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's Report on Antisemitism in Australia 2021 estimated that antisemitic incidents, including assaults, verbal abuse and vandalism, increased by 35 per cent over the previous year, a worrying trend that is mirrored around the world. One particularly disturbing example from my area was the story of a young Jewish student being pushed into a school locker and sprayed with aerosol to simulate gas chambers. The Safer Communities Fund has played a critical role in giving the local Jewish community across Wentworth and across the country vital infrastructure to protect residents. This includes protection for synagogues, schools and other community centres as well as monitoring of digital threats. These grants have only partly covered physical infrastructure and the community themselves have invested millions to supplement this with their own funds. I would also like to note that the work of the Community Security Group, which has been partly funded by the Safer Communities Fund as well as by the Jewish community, also provides vital information to the New South Wales police and others by working together and sharing intelligence. I would like to understand from the Attorney-General what the government is going to do in terms of ensuring the safety of communities that have been supported by the Safer Communities Fund.
The second question I have for the Attorney-General relates to respect at work support. I acknowledge the good work that the government has done in implementing the respect at work bill in full, and I support that. However, I have real concerns from the LGBTQ community that they are not covered by the respect at work legislation. The respect at work legislation has a very narrow definition in terms of sex and doesn't even reflect the full range of characteristics protected under the Sex Discrimination Act, including sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, pregnancy or relationship status. This means that the bill does not provide appropriate protection for the LGBTQ community. It also creates inconsistency in terms of what we are asking from businesses, who must already comply with antidiscrimination law which relates to all the protected characteristics under the Sex Discrimination Act. I know the Attorney-General is committed to supporting the LGBTQ community and I appreciate his words to that effect. I would like to understand how he is going to ensure that the LGBTQ community can get the benefit of the protection that has been allowed under the respect at work legislation.
My final question relates to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the proposed legislation for which is before parliament as we speak. Again I would like to acknowledge the government's good work in bringing a strong and robust NACC to the parliament; it is something that my community in Wentworth wholeheartedly supports. However, I am concerned with the oversight of this NACC and particularly the fact that the government of the day is able to appoint a commissioner, deputy commissioner and inspector on political or party lines if it wishes to, without any need to get support from across the parliament. I understand the government's desire to retain control of parliamentary committees. It's the way that things have always been done in this place. But, if May's election has told us anything, it's that things need to change. For the NACC bills, and the commission itself, to succeed, the parliamentary committee that oversees it must act and be perceived to act without partisan motive. This is particularly important when it comes to the committee's role in confirming the appointments of these people. I've heard the Attorney-General acknowledge that the commissioner's appointment is absolutely critical in terms of how the NACC will be perceived and how effective the NACC will be. And I believe that that appointment is so absolutely critical that it must not be seen to be politicised—even if that is only a perception. There must be a mechanism to get broader support across the parliament and to ensure that it is not seen as a political piece. The perception that this could be a political appointment could undermine the NACC from the start, and that would be a great travesty for the people who invested, and who are saying that we need to invest, in the quality of our democracy and in the institutions of our democracy to protect against bad actors. I will be moving an amendment in this space. I seek to understand, from the government's point of view, how the Attorney-General is going to ensure that the appointment of the commissioner cannot be partisan and bring the NACC into disrepute.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:24): Attorney-General, I want to take you to something you mentioned in your opening remarks and also something touched on by the member for Wentworth. I was pleased to see in the October budget that $262.6 million has been set aside for the establishment and ongoing operation of the Albanese Labor government's National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's really important that this commission has the resources it needs to investigate referrals and complaints in a timely way.
I was also happy to see that there is funding provided for the NACC to undertake corruption prevention and education. The Labor government is committed to tackling corruption and restoring trust and integrity to federal politics. Obviously, it was a great day for Australian democracy when you introduced that legislation to establish a transparent and independent NACC, delivering on that core election commitment. It follows the unanimous report of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation in supporting the bill. I'm looking forward to seeing that bill pass the House and move one step closer to becoming law early in December, hopefully, or very late in November.
Earlier this year, Australians had much less reason to hope that the country would see a powerful, independent and properly resourced anticorruption commission, because the Morrison government also committed to establishing an anticorruption commission but never actually delivered on that promise. On 13 December 2018 the member for Cook stood up with former Attorney-General Christian Porter to announce their plan for an anticorruption commission. They promised Australians, in public, that the commission would be given 'real resources and real teeth'. What we got, however, was a bill that never went beyond a draft and a model that integrity experts described as the weakest watchdog in the country, that would hide corruption and not expose it.
Obviously, the Morrison government was never serious about fighting corruption, which is why it never followed through on the promise made to the Australian people. The Morrison government's proposal was also woefully underfunded. In April this year Dr Catherine Williams, Research Director at the Centre for Public Integrity, said of the former government's funding package:
The Government committed to establishing a Commonwealth Integrity Commission 3 years ago. The lack of sufficient funding shows that the Government is not serious about delivering on its promise.
The Centre for Public Integrity also highlighted cuts made by the previous government to other integrity bodies, such as the Australian National Audit Office and the Ombudsman. Both of them are important, but I would suggest the National Audit Office is particularly so.
All that underfunding is emblematic of the Morrison government's tendency to hide from scrutiny and oversight. The Albanese Labor government takes such things seriously, demonstrated by the fact that the $262.6 million delivered in the October budget is almost $90 million more than the previous Morrison government allocated to its unlegislated commission. I congratulate the Attorney-General for setting up a commission with real powers, real funding and real teeth. My question is: how will the $262.6 million allocated in the October budget ensure that the commission has the resources it needs to track down and stamp out corruption in the Commonwealth public sector?
Mr WOLAHAN (Menzies) (13:27): I have two questions for the Attorney-General, and noting the time, I won't use the full five minutes.
First, I note that I was one of the 12 members of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation and thank the chair, Senator White, and the deputy, the member for Indi. I also note the fact that so many members of that committee were actually from the class of 2022. Some maybe said, 'Where's the experience?', but I think, in hindsight, it was really good. It was a fresh move. It was people who didn't bring any baggage from a previous life in this place, and I thought that was good.
Senator Shoebridge made the following point to many witnesses. He meant it in a positive way, Attorney-General, when he said, 'When drafting or reviewing this bill, when looking at your powers to publish a report, should we assume the worst, Attorney-General?' And he would always qualify that by not labelling you as the worst Attorney-General. Many witnesses would agree, of course, that it's a prudent thing when you're looking at a bill to assume the worst.
The point should also be made for the commissioner, or the inspector. In the end, we'll have amendments. We'll have debates in the House and the Senate. The act will give enormous powers to that person, and, over the life of the NACC, which may be very long, one day there will be a bad commissioner. One day there will be a bad inspector. It would be a good thing if we had the same level of consultation and bipartisanship in the appointment of that person. So my first question is: will you commit to engaging with the same level of cooperation that the committee did in appointing the commissioner, the deputy commissioners and the inspectors?
The second question relates to the consultation process and the time line we were given. When you look at the bill, the consequential bill and the explanatory memorandum, a lot of work went into those, and I commend those who were involved in the drafting, but it comes to 667 pages. When you look at the submissions—we had 140 submissions—they add up to 1,340 pages worth of submissions. A lot of effort went into many of them, and I thank those who made the submissions, but I reflect on the possibility that we might have had more time. Have we missed out on doing a more thorough job if we had been given through to the new year to do this task? So my second question is this: why did the government put a premium on a deadline, over making the bill the best that it could be?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (13:30): I'll deal first with the matters raised by the member for Berowra, who I see has left the chamber without waiting for the answers. The member for Berowra raised some questions about the decision I made under section 71 of the Judiciary Act to end the prosecution of Bernard Collaery, and I have to say that his allegation that I did not explain that decision is an absurd one. I held a press conference at which I explained the reasons behind the ending of the prosecution of Mr Bernard Collaery. As I said then, and I'll say it again, it reflects the government's commitment to our national security and our commitment to our relations with our neighbours.
The government remains absolutely steadfast in our commitment to keep Australians safe by keeping secrets out of the wrong hands. As such—and I explained this at the time—I made an application to the ACT Court of Appeal to consider redactions to parts of its judgments prior to publication. That's the end of what I will say publicly about this. The longstanding practice of the government has been to neither confirm nor deny claims about intelligence matters. I will strictly adhere to that practice. I reject completely the absurd, ridiculous and, might I say, disgraceful suggestion made by the member for Berowra that the decision to end the prosecution of Mr Bernard Collaery had anything to do with the service of Mr Collaery as an independent member of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory, during which time he was for a time the Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory.
As to the other matter raised by the member for Berowra, which was the Montgomery case, it's a case that raised some important legal questions about the scope of the Commonwealth's power to make laws under the aliens power in the Australian Constitution. The previous Attorney-General brought that constitutional aspect of the case before the High Court and made submissions on that aspect of the case. The High Court had heard the matter in April 2022 and had reserved judgement on it before the election of the Labor government on 21 May. A ministerial delegate—I'll repeat that; a ministerial delegate—in the Department of Home Affairs overturned the decision to cancel Mr Montgomery's visa, restoring his visa, on 15 July 2022. In light of Mr Montgomery's visa being restored, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, who were the parties to the case in the High Court, considered it appropriate to file a notice of discontinuance. It was their application in the High Court which ended the appeal on 28 July 2022. The member for Berowra, who is claiming to be the shadow Attorney-General in this parliament, would be well advised to actually check some facts, check something about legal process and check something about the processes of the High Court before he seeks to raise the kinds of absurd questions that he wasted the time of this chamber with.
I thank the member for Moreton for raising the importance of access to justice in this place, including drawing attention to the very valuable Lighthouse Project in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Ensuring that people have access to justice is an absolutely fundamental and critical element of the rule of law. I'm very pleased at the limited but nevertheless additional funding that we've been able to provide in the October budget to a range of parts of the legal assistance sector.
I want to quickly turn to the member for Wentworth's questions, one of which went to the Safer Communities Fund. The Safer Communities Fund is something that I think had reached its 10th round by the time of the announcement in the last federal budget before the October budget. It was, of course, for grants to improve community safety, but the $50 million funding had not been announced, no grant round had been commenced and the funds remained unallocated. What's significant here is that the Auditor-General had found that applications to the Safer Communities Fund were not assessed in accordance with program guidelines, decisions were not informed by departmental briefings and reasons for decisions were frequently not recorded. We are actively looking at options to make sure that communities continue to get the funding they need.
If I can, I will turn very quickly to the questions by the member for Menzies. I thank him for his work in the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. I can assure him that there will be merit based appointment processes for all of the National Anti-Corruption Commission appointments. The arrangement that we have in this bill is for a relatively unprecedented membership of a committee of 12, with six government members, four opposition members and two crossbench members. There's only one other example of such a structure among the parliamentary committee structures.
It's entirely appropriate that the appointments be made by the government, but we are providing for an approval process of the important positions at the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I would really seek to assure the member for Menzies and all those interested in the National Anti-Corruption Commission about the process. It's a relatively unusual one in the Australian political context, in having not quite what one would call confirmation hearings, like they do in the Senate of the United States Congress. Nevertheless, having an approval process for a government appointment is a relatively unusual thing. I think it will achieve the purpose that we want of providing an assurance to the Australian people that the very best people are being appointed to these positions.
Any government in the future that seeks to make a partisan appointment is going to cop criticism from the committee. That's the way this process should work. If the government sought to abuse the appointments power by making a totally partisan appointment, intending, if you like, to thwart or abuse the processes of the National Anti-Corruption Commission itself, it would do so at its peril.
I am very much hoping that we will have the support of the entire parliament for the model that we have brought forward. I do believe that the bill we have brought to the parliament, with the 11 government amendments that I've given notice of, is going to be the very best model of an anticorruption commission, based, as it is, on learning from the mistakes that have been made and some of the deficiencies that have been identified in the eight state and territory anticorruption commissions that we've seen established over the last 30 years.
I thank the member again very much for his participation in this parliament's processes.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 13:38 to 16:00
Consideration in Detail
Home Affairs Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $387,778,000
Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (16:00): It's a great pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, this consideration in detail, on the budgetary measures connected to the Home Affairs portfolio. In my opening remarks I will concentrate particularly on those matters within my responsibility, although of course, as members would be well aware, the appropriations also go to those matters directly within the remit of the Minister for Home Affairs and also to those of Senator Watt in his capacities in the national emergency management space that fall within the Home Affairs portfolio, a space which obviously has been of particular relevance as much of the country has been working its way through a series of weather events. Our thoughts are with those on the front line of that as we consider the significant reforms that Minister Watt has overseen, many of which they supported by appropriations contained in the bill that is before this consideration in detail process. I look forward to exchanging with members of the opposition and members of the crossbench, should they seek to participate in this conversation, and I know that there are government members who have issues of concern to them they wish to raise.
For this government, and particularly in respect of my responsibilities, this budget delivers on some longstanding concerns we have had about elevating the role of immigration. There are a number of investments which put into the budget in the most meaningful way these longstanding aspirations about seeing immigration as a core function of the national government. Indeed, it is a function that really is about nation-building and a function that, sadly, has had to be substantially rebuilt following nearly a decade of neglect under the members opposite.
We see this neglect particularly in the area of visa processing, where staff had been dragged down through cuts, cuts and more cuts, leaving us unprepared for the challenge that lay ahead of our nation as borders reopened, with very significant consequences for our economy and even more significant consequences, I might say, for those many Australians with deep family connections to people outside this nation. Rebuilding that capacity with very significant investments has been a significant focus for the government and a task that we have approached with urgency. As I told the House not that long ago, since 1 June we have dealt with 3.4 million visas. We would not have been able to do this and reduce the processing time for some key visa categories, and I think particularly of some of the temporary skilled visas, which were taking in some cases months to be processed previously. The time is now down to days. That is down to a couple of things: firstly, the quality of work that is being done by the wonderful women and men who work in the home affairs department and, secondly, the additional resourcing that has been put before them, hiring more people and offering up the opportunity for more over time to speed this process. There is more work being done, which is being facilitated by investments contained in the budget in this regard. These investments are critical in and of themselves, but they are also the basis upon which a wider reform agenda can be prosecuted. These investments are in and of themselves critical, but they are also the basis upon which a wider reform agenda can be prosecuted, and I'm very pleased that, as one of the many outcomes of the government's very successful Jobs and Skills Summit—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr GILES: Well, the Leader of the National Party had a different take than the shadow minister for immigration on this matter. Perhaps he's scoffing because he was pretty keen for an invitation. Perhaps he wasn't allowed to come, and—
An honourable member: I was glad in the end you refused.
Mr GILES: I was very keen for the shadow minister for immigration to come. I always enjoy my interactions with the member for Wannon and I'm very disappointed that he was denied the opportunity to participate—denied the freedom to participate in that important forum. But a critical outcome of that forum was Minister O'Neil, the Minister for Home Affairs, announcing a migration review. It is important, because it has been a generation since we've had a hard look at our migration system and how it can serve our national interest. This review, headed by three eminent Australians—Martin Parkinson, Joanna Howe and John Azarias—will provide us with the basis, hopefully, to land a broad consensus around the purpose of our system and then to build upon the groundwork that is contained in this budget, which has got our system moving once again.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (16:05): As the shadow minister for home affairs, child protection, and the prevention of family violence, I can tell you that Labor's first budget has been lacklustre for some pretty crucial policy areas, like cybersecurity and cybercrime. With the change of government came a significant gutting of the Home Affairs portfolio, and I note that the minister who is here today has responsibility for immigration and citizenship. That portfolio area largely remains unchanged, but the rest of Home Affairs has been absolutely gutted, so that it is just a shell of what it was previously. But, leaving that aside, what we've actually seen in the rest of the portfolio responsibilities in relation to cybersecurity is somewhat disappointing. I say that in the broadest sense and, clearly, commenting on the actions or lack of action by the minister responsible.
I am absolutely without doubt that millions of Australians would prefer their information to be kept private, and they are concerned about the extent of the cybercrimes that are happening and the ability of the minister responsible to step up, face the public, talk about what the issues are and disclose what plans, if any, she may well have to deal with cybersecurity. Quite frankly, it's becoming quite the pattern of behaviour from the minister responsible for cybersecurity—and what's left of Home Affairs outside Immigration, which is not very much—that we don't get much of a response and that any response that we get is quite tardy and incomplete, to say the least.
We actually did try to assist, as a coalition, with putting some ransomware legislation into the House. Unfortunately Labor saw fit to use its numbers to ensure that that was not progressed so, at this point in time, there is no ransomware legislation that the government is progressing, which clearly leaves consumers in Australia at a disadvantage. We were very clear on ransomware and how important it was. We introduced the legislation earlier in the year so it would've been easy for the government to have proceeded just to pass that legislation, given that they had indicated that they were prepared to pass it in the last parliament. I remain open to progressing that legislation because I think it's clearly important for the community to make sure that Australia is as prepared as it possibly can be.
Legislative solutions are, clearly, a government responsibility. There was a very sobering annual threat assessment from the Australian Cyber Security Centre that documented our deteriorating cyberenvironment and recognised cyberspace as a leading domain for warfare and crime, including extortion, espionage and fraud. Recognising the evolving threat in cyber, the coalition embarked on the biggest investment in further hardening our cyberdefences with over $10 billion for REDSPICE through the Australian Signals Directorate. To meet these challenges, it is absolutely critical that project REDSPICE is delivered in full. It was funded in the March budget, and REDSPICE is the single most significant investment to transform the Australian Signals Directorate's offensive and defensive capabilities.
During our time in government, the Home Affairs portfolio spearheaded several significant cybersecurity improvements, directly benefitting all Australians, including by supporting industries to grow online by launching the National Plan to Combat Cybercrime, cracking down on cybercriminals by funding a dedicated AFP led cybercrime centre and securing landmark reforms to national security legislation to better protect our critical infrastructure. These improvements are very broadly recognised as world-leading changes and legislation introduced by the government at the time in respect of critical infrastructure. We made all Australians safe through the passage of important legislation to revolutionise the way Australian agencies investigate and prosecute cybercrime. There were a number of other pieces of legislation that were introduced and operationalised during the time the former government was in place.
My question for the government is: will you guarantee further funding for offensive and defensive cybercapabilities and expedite the passage of new ransomware laws to harden Australia from the escalating cyber threat?
Mr LAXALE (Bennelong) (16:11): The immigration and visa-processing system is broken. I hear this every day from people right across my electorate of Bennelong, one of the most diverse electorates in the country. Every day my office receives countless emails and calls from people who have been waiting for years and who are caught up in an outdated system and broken system. I've heard story after story at mobile offices on the street. After 10 years of neglect and delay, I'm glad to see our government is finally taking action, because those opposite did nothing. That is what they do. They make systems of government unusable and inaccessible. That is what they did to our immigration and visa-processing system. Further, they wind up the tired old dog whistling--the disgusting and dangerous rhetoric. It's time that we start to think more compassionately and creatively about those who want to call Australia home, just like my parents and their parents did.
Migrants make our country stronger, they make our country richer, and they make our country safer. Those opposite need to hear this over and over and over until it's seared in their brain! I'll keep on saying it in this place for as long as I'm here. Migrants make our country stronger, richer and safer. I'll say it again! Migrants make our country stronger, richer and safer. Our country was built on the back of migrants. Our economic miracle was built on the back of migrants. And just like the thousands of constituents in Bennelong, my family story is no different.
There are people in my electorate like Sam. He has visited me twice to update me about his situation. He migrated to Australia from Nepal 13 years ago. Since 2016, he has been stuck on continuous visas. He was unable to work or study, and, in 2019, he was granted work rights on his visa, but he's still unable to study. Despite living in Australia for 13 years, despite contributing to our economy, despite starting a family here, he is still unable to access government services that most Australians can, and he still doesn't have permanent residency. Recently, he suffered a spinal injury on the job and will be unable to continue in his current job. He sits in a hospital bed right now, having had his spinal surgery yesterday, knowing he won't be able to undertake the study he needs to retain and get another job. He's worried about whether he'll be able to support his family.
Jessamin from Epping applied for a contributory parent visa almost five years ago. She paid $50,000 for the privilege. She tells me that her 71-year-old mum's application hasn't even been assessed. Jessamin and her brother are Australian citizens. They simply want to look after their mum. At 71 years old, another three, four or five years in this system might mean the difference between this family spending quality time with their mum or not.
These are just two of hundreds of stories from many residents in Bennelong. They want and deserve certainty, and they deserve to live here and feel part of our vibrant community. I'm so thankful that one of the first actions of this government was to start fixing this broken system left behind by the former government. There have been 300 additional staff appointed in visa processing roles since May 2022. Almost 200 staff have been allocated to visa teams for regular overtime and rolling recruitment. An additional $36.1 million will go to support a surge workforce to fix the crisis. More than 3.4 million visa applications have been finalised since 1 June, including more than 2.9 million applications that involve applicants who are outside Australia.
That's before we even get on to the benefits and outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit, like increasing the number of permanently skilled and family visas to $195,000. That's an increase of over $35,000. We will also have pathways to permanent residency. For residents who come and work here and for their families, that's a path that they deserve to have, just as it has been in the past, because—I'll say it again—migrants make our country richer, stronger and safer. I thank the minister for his amazing work in this role to date. I look forward to seeing what more he can do.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (16:16): I've got a series of questions that I was hoping the immigration minister might be able to answer. We're now six months into this term of government, and I would like to know whether the minister is embarrassed that, after nine years in opposition, he's had to appoint a panel to develop an immigration policy because in nine years in opposition the government did nothing. If that's not the case, could he, this afternoon, detail his immigration plan? Would he, in particular, tell us: How many young skilled migrants will be included in the additional 35,000 permanent places? How many temporary skilled visas have been issued in the last six months? How many permanent skilled visas have been issued in the last six months? What is the make-up of the individual categories of those permanent visas and those temporary visas that have been issued in the six months?
Can the minister also explain: it's understandable that this could be occurring, but what is the department doing given that there are 300 new people now processing visas and they don't seem to have been given the adequate training that's necessary to be able to deal with all the errors that they are making? Some of those errors have very, very severe consequences for those who have applied for visas. For instance, once your visa has been rejected and you cannot come to Australia, then you also cannot apply to go to other countries. It would seem to me that some sort of review system needs to be put in place and put in place very quickly if we are going to be able to deal with this.
Would the minister also be transparent with the Australian people? He talked with great fanfare about his jobs summit and the announcement out of that of the 35,000 additional permanent places for one year. What is going to happen the following year and the year after that? Will those 35,000 permanent places continue, or is this something he has outsourced to the panel because he didn't have a migration policy when he came to government? It would be very good to know about that.
Also, will the minister adopt all the recommendations of his panel, or will he select some of the recommendations from his panel? It would be very good if he could tell the Australian people, having set up the panel to devise an immigration policy for the government, whether that will become the immigration policy for the government, or will he cherry-pick according to his own plans? The Australian people also want to know: what are your plans when it comes to temporary protection visas? What are your plans when it comes to SHEVs? Are you going to be fully transparent with the Australian people as to what the numbers are and how you will be dealing with these issues? When will you do that? There are a lot of people wanting to know the details around this, which we are yet to see.
The government has used smoke and mirrors to try and play around with the actual allocation of money that has been given to the department for visa processing. The government has made a huge fanfare about the additional resources that have been put in place. There are still over 700,000 visas waiting to be processed. Will the allocation of those new resources be a one-off, or is the government going to ensure that those positions stay in place? Because there are 700,000 people waiting to have their visa processed. What the Australian people are looking for, Minister, is a plan. They have been waiting nine years to see this government have a plan for immigration. They haven't seen it yet. You've outsourced it, but it would be good if you could explain a little bit of the detail of what your policy for immigration is.
Ms FERNANDO (Holt) (16:21): Ever since the election of the Albanese Labor government, in May, we have made the overhaul of our immigration system one of our top priorities. I am pleased to see such progress in this space after only six months of hard work by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Giles, and many others of this government. I am personally thankful to the minister for always making time to hear my thoughts on the immigration system, particularly concerning matters about the humanitarian, partner and many other visas that affect my community.
In particular, the Afghan community in my electorate of Holt has been extremely affected by various visa issues for over a decade, and this situation was intensified by the fall of Kabul in August of last year. I am proud that Australia has committed $141 million for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan from September 2021 to December 2024. This includes $20 million for displaced people within Afghanistan and neighbouring countries hosting Afghan refugees. I know this government shares the concerns of our Afghan community groups at reports of displacement within and surrounding Afghanistan. I know this specific investment, in helping to secure the safety of these displaced people, is an important one.
In addition to the material support, I am pleased the government has allocated 26,500 places in our humanitarian program to Afghan nationals, and since the tragic fall of Kabul, over 8,000 permanent humanitarian visas have been granted to Afghan nationals. It is critical that Australia continue to support our Afghan friends as they supported us and the wider coalition forces. Our financial and humanitarian actions show our commitment to those Afghans and their families who are fleeing Taliban rule. No one, particularly the women of Afghanistan, should have to live in fear and as second-class citizens, and I am glad Australia is playing our part on the global stage in welcoming them with open arms.
In a further show of our commitment to this community, just a few days ago the government announced the cancellation of ministerial Direction 80. This is welcome news to my Afghan community, and indeed, everyone across Australia. The ministerial direction, cruelly put in place by the former government, shamefully put Afghan-sponsored visa applications at the bottom of the pile if the visa holder entered Australia as an unlawful maritime arrival. The cancellation is in stark contrast to the former government, which let the visa tray pile up for over one million applications and left families unable to be reunited, only providing false hope that things would get better. Well, things did get better, but only under the new Labor government. It is a further example of our commitment to convert current holders of temporary protection and safe haven enterprise visas onto permanent visas. This action gives certainty to those who have been on these visas. Many of them have been here for nearly a decade. These people have been already assessed as needing Australia's protection, and it only makes sense to make this permanent. It is the right thing to do.
Further to that, those on TPVs and SHEVs work, pay taxes, start small businesses, employ other Australians and contribute to their communities in various ways, be it through charity, animal welfare or environmental work. This is just a small list of things that they do. These working and contributing members of our community should be allowed to get on with their lives and live in peace, just like the rest of us.
It is a smart economic decision. Through this action, we will stop spending countless taxpayer dollars on reassessing their visas every three to five years. This government strongly believes that we as a society can have strong and guarded borders whilst also being compassionate to our friends in need and doing our part as a global citizen. I praise the government for these necessary changes.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (16:26): I'm going to go ahead with a couple of questions for the immigration minister. They're not too difficult, so I'm hoping he can give me some answers. Firstly, is the Safer Communities Fund now a responsibility under Home Affairs or Attorney-General's? It was obviously cut in the budget. If there's going to be a new funding model, which we read about in media reports, to replace the Safer Communities Fund program, again, will that fall under Attorney-General's or under the Home Affairs department? And, in particular, would it also cover, as in the former government, high-risk youth? There was a stream for high-risk youth and there was a stream for infrastructure, in particular, places of worship. Again, for the immigration minister's benefit, it's about the Safer Communities program: where will that sit, and what will the funding model look like?
Will there be other grants available for multicultural communities in general? We also had festival grants delivered under the previous government. They haven't actually hit the ground so I'm interested to know where they're up to.
Finally, when it comes to OMARA, the Office of Migration Agents Registration Authority, will the minister be looking at putting in place an independent commissioner to overlook the immigration agents and the illegal operators? This was something in my last role in government as the assistant minister that was signed off to the department to put models in place.
The reason I raise these questions is that in the budget, the new government, Labor, announced a redirection of $50 million in October 2022. Round 7 for the Safer Communities program would have previously been in the 2022 budget. The $50 million would have funded the previous coalition government's commitments under the Safer Communities Fund. I make the point, the grants hadn't been allocated but the money was actually there to be used.
To give the minister an idea of the importance of infrastructure funding—I'm sure he's very aware—the reason this was brought in was after the awful terrorist attacks in Christchurch. The round 6 funding had $10 million in total. That funding also went to mosques, Hindu and Buddhist temples, Sikh gurdwaras, churches and synagogues. I note the Labor Party took this to the Auditor-General when, in the Auditor-General's recommendations, he recommended that for these small minority groups, in particular when it comes to, say, the Hindu communities and the Buddhist communities, making a special round of grant funding for them.
The other thing which greatly concerned me is some of that $50 million of funding would have gone towards a program we put in place for high-risk youth. This is the youth who are falling out of school or involved in gangs or crimes. I see the member for Holt there; she might be very familiar with the Hope Australia Soccer Academy, where they're looking after a number of migrants from African communities and Afghan communities. The total funding we put in place in round 6 was $120 million. It was completely oversubscribed. Included in those rounds, which is important for all members here, was $18.3 million to Indigenous youth initiatives. It was really targeted funding at places of worship and also high-risk youth.
We need to do everything we possibly can to protect and support the youth and stop them going down the wrong path, dropping out of school et cetera. That's something which has greatly concerned me. I know when I've spoken to members of the various Indian communities, the Hindu community, the Sikhs and even the Sri Lankan community, they have been very concerned that this funding has been cut. So I urge the government to reconsider the Safer Communities Fund as a matter of urgency, and to not wait until next year's budget but to get something out earlier so that people will actually know what will be offered in the program.
Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (16:31): I'm grateful for the contribution of members so far. Obviously a very large number of questions have been raised. I think the member for Wannon probably broke a record for consideration in detail. I'm very flattered that he feels I can go through so many issues in such a quick—
Mr Tehan: Or just take them on notice and come back.
Mr GILES: Some I will, but this is a serious process, and we take very seriously the consideration in detail of the budget and related matters by members. I will work through as many of them as I can.
He asked a number of questions around visa processing to date under the government, and I'm very pleased to advise him that the number in respect of skilled permanent is 50,000; temporary, 48,000; partner, 18,000; working holiday, 95,000; and student, 195,000. So we are making very considerable process in these categories, I'm sure he will be pleased to know. I actually did have the opportunity to visit Colac, in his electorate, where the demand for—
Mr Tehan: I know you did; you did a fundraiser for the local candidate.
Mr GILES: Actually, I think you might want to withdraw that. I did not. I did not do that. I met with local businesses with the local candidate. You should think about that, mate. You really should.
Mr Wood: Just answer the questions.
Mr GILES: I'm responding to an interjection that was a serious one. I did not do a fundraiser in Colac.
Mr Tehan: Did you do a fundraiser for the local candidate?
Mr GILES: I may have done a fundraiser, but not while I was in Colac, Dan. You should be very clear about making allegations.
Mr Tehan: Did you do a fundraiser for the local candidate? Are you denying—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Sharkie ): I would remind members to direct their comments through the chair.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I will go through, as far as possible, the questions the member for Wannon asked. He made some frankly bizarre remarks about the state of our policy framework vis a vis the past nine years, which, from someone who sat around the cabinet table, is shocking and frankly appalling. You were an architect of the mess that we are trying to clear up. You were not a principal architect but a significant one, and you should accept your share of responsibility for the mess of a decade of neglect. Take responsibility for the cuts.
I am particularly offended by the remarks and the insinuations you made against the staff of the home affairs department and the allegations you made about their decision-making. I think those are not remarks that should be made lightly. They should not be made lightly. I am very proud of the work people do in all the areas in the department for which I have some responsibilities. I think all of us in this place should stand up for the women and men who work in the Australian Public Service. The work we have asked people to do in a number of areas in this department—including those areas for which the shadow minister for home affairs has responsibility—is hard work. It's really important work in the national interest. We should recognise and respect that and not make the sort of allegations that the member just made.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr Tehan: No, I will not. I'm responding. You should be able to answer that question. Are there review processes? These are new people. What's the process?
Mr GILES: You have had five minutes and you've asked probably 15 or 20 minutes in that. You've interjected throughout. You should take this process seriously, Shadow Minister, and you should take your responsibilities seriously. I think you do understand how the visa system operates, not least because you are a member of parliament—and you've been a cabinet minister for a large component of that time. You know very well the framework which operates under the act and the regulations. If you don't, perhaps you could ask the shadow minister for home affairs, who is across these issues. I really think you should be careful in making some of these remarks.
If you want to know what Labor's policies are you can look at our platform. It was debated publicly and has been available online for quite some time. You can have regard to that. You can also have regard to the decisions which are set out in this budget, which inform the priorities that we have put forward in the national interest in responding to the challenges that are before us.
The thing is that in so many of these areas there needn't be any partisan rancour or division, because it's so obvious that getting our visa system moving is in the national interest. It's something that businesses have been crying out for. It's something that families have been crying out for. What we see from the opposition is, yes, to criticise where you need to but to recognise there is work to be done in the national interest and to have some regard for that but particularly, in criticising me, not to take cheap shots at public servants.
Ms TINK (North Sydney) (16:36): Many in North Sydney were disappointed to see the limited improvement in our human rights expenditure in the federal budget. Central to this disappointment was a lack of action in the Home Affairs portfolio. If we view the federal budget as an indication of the government's priorities and values, then I'd have to lament on behalf of the people of North Sydney that the humane treatment of refugees and people seeking asylum has been abandoned by this government. Key Labor Party commitments have not been met within this budget. We saw no budget allocated for increasing the humanitarian intake, abolishing temporary protection visas or safe haven enterprise visas, or providing appropriate social services like work and study rights for people seeking asylum.
Specifically in the context of the appropriation bills, I'd like to put four questions to the minister for immigration. Firstly, to the $632 million allocated this financial year for offshore processing, arguably this is wasteful spending on a cruel and inhumane offshore-processing system for asylum seekers. Since Australia's offshore detention centres were reopened by the Gillard government in 2012, successive governments have spent just on $11.7 billion on offshore detention and processing arrangements. As noted by regular Kaldor Centre analysis, each year the actual expenditure on offshore processing is far higher than the cost originally budgeted. To spend so much to punish so few is financially irresponsible and ultimately, arguably, immoral, and it is the view of many in North Sydney that Australia's treatment of asylum seekers is in urgent need of reform.
Disappointingly, the Albanese government is spending $150 million more a year than the Morrison government did on holding refugees offshore. According to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, this increase in spending alone could fund refugee support services for the next four years. Minister: how does the government justify the additional $150 million for the cruel offshore-processing regime, and did the government consider redirecting this expenditure to fund refugee support services?
Secondly, there is an urgent need to restore a basic financial safety net for people seeking asylum. Communities across Australia are witnessing the impacts of destitution and homelessness amongst bridging visa holders as a direct result of changes in 2017 to eligibility for the Status Resolution Support Services, or SRSS, program. The juxtaposition between the Treasurer's claim that this is a wellbeing budget for all and the record low levels of the SRSS is jarring. Can the minister please provide reasons for the deliberate exclusion of visa holders from social support services.
Thirdly, no additional places within the refugee and humanitarian programs were announced in the budget. Refugee resettlement to Australia dropped to a 45-year low in the 2021 period, and lost places have never been restored, despite the UNHCR identifying an ever-increasing number of refugees in urgent need of resettlement. Yet in this budget, the number of humanitarian places remains at 13,750, with an additional 16,400 places over four years for Afghan refugees. Additional places for community sponsorship were not included in this budget. This is despite Labor's pledge to expand the humanitarian program progressively to 27,000 per year with an additional 5,000 places for community sponsorship. I ask the minister: when will the Labor Party fulfil its commitments to expand the humanitarian program and end temporary protection, and why was this not funded in this budget? How can we find hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to harm refugees offshore yet find nothing for those who need our care and support?
Finally, I turn to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The AAT is responsible for the review of administrative decisions made by the Australian government, including the applications of people seeking asylum, and it is in crisis. Waiting times for refugees average nearly five years, and there is a backlog of over 30,000 applications. The budget acknowledges the increasing backlog and that it has not met its target of reducing cases, but the government has failed to commit any additional resources to the AAT or to the Immigration Assessment Authority, which is an independent authority within the AAT that is responsible for conducting the fast-track process. When will the government adequately fund the AAT?
Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (16:40): I thank the member for North Sydney. She has raised four very significant issues, and I think it'd be fair to say that we as the government share the principles she's expressing but have found the need to give expression to them differently. I should say at the start that the issues relating to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are not within the purview of the Department of Home Affairs. I say to my dear friend, the member for La Trobe, who was very interested in getting an answer to his questions about safer communities, that, similarly, he could perhaps raise those matters with the Attorney-General if he's so determined to get to the bottom of those issues.
But on those questions, let me also say that this budget reveals that, when it comes to support for multicultural communities, this is a government that keeps its promises. The election commitments that we made are enacted within them. Many reflect the deep understanding that the Australian Labor Party and the Albanese government have for the particular needs of culturally and linguistically diverse communities and, in fact, their recognition of many of the aspirations that the shadow minister, the member for La Trobe, set out, but they give effect to them in a transparent and considered manner.
You raised three other issues. The government does not share your view when it comes to the offshore processing arrangements. I should make clear to the House that, with the securing of the transfer of six people from Nauru to New Zealand to resume their lives, the Minister for Home Affairs delivered very significant and long-overdue news. I remind everyone that this really was something that could've happened in 2012 when the New Zealand government made that generous offer. There have been 10 wasted years and untold damage. My friend the Minister of Home Affairs is getting on with the task of dealing with that now.
The issues around the safety net are important issues and, on my part, they have been the subject of intensive consultation with the sector to ensure that those matters that are set out in Labor's platform are given effect to, and are given effect to properly. There is a lot of work to be done in that regard to make sure that we get it right. Similarly, you talk about this budget not dealing with the issue of the commitments that our government made in respect of progressively, as you say, increasing the intake. This is absolutely critical. But, again, it's critical that we get it right, and it's critical that, when we resettle people, we give them every support they need. That requires giving proper consideration to those arrangements which enable someone who comes here on the humanitarian pathway to get everything they need to begin a life here, to feel that they belong and to be supported to make the contribution that we know they can make—indeed, to recognise, as the member for Bennelong said, that refugees, as do all migrants, make our country richer, stronger and safer.
We are going to work through a plan—as we have been doing, in the course of consultations with the sector—to get to 27,000 per annum. Of course, we are going to deal with the commitments we have made around community sponsorship and, importantly, with the commitments for community sponsorship places to be additional to those supported by the government program directly. We are doing so right now. I'll also take this opportunity to advise the House that, under our government, the refugee and humanitarian program is non-discriminatory. That was not the case for the last nine years, which is utterly shameful. We will accept humanitarian entrants on the basis of need, as advised by the UNHCR. That is the proper course, and it always should have been the proper course for any responsible Australian government, particularly now that—I know the member for North Sydney knows this well—we are living in a world where there are more people forcibly displaced than at any time in human history, and we have to face the reality that climate change and its impacts are going to make this challenge even worse. As Minister Bowen has been doing in respect of our international engagement on climate change, doing the right thing at home is not only the right thing to do morally and not only the right thing to do in the national interest; it is a vital thing to do if we are to play a meaningful role in a constructive international process that makes a difference in dealing with this international humanitarian crisis.
This is something that I think Australians would like to see us do. We see that in the response to the awful circumstances in Afghanistan, which were touched on by my friend the member for Holt. We see that in response to the crisis and the ongoing conflict brought on by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We can do better. Under this government, we will do better.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Sharkie ): I remind all members present that consideration in detail is a debate, and the call will be alternated between the government and non-government sides, as always. Even though this debate sometimes takes the format of question and answer, this is not question time. Ministers and government backbench members will be considered as speakers on the government side and should bear this in mind when they seek the call. Speakers are required to be relevant to whichever portfolio is being examined, but there is no requirement for direct relevance in respect to any responses.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $351,686,000
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro—Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) (16:47): I'm proud to rise today as a minister in the Albanese Labor government to talk about our successful first six months in government and how our budget is delivering on our commitment to the Australian public and, in particular, those living in regional Australia.
Throughout these six months we have consistently delivered, putting into action our plans that the Australian people voted for. Our October budget was no different. It is responsible. It's solid. It's suited to the times we're in. But we know that these are challenging times. A substantial global slowdown, high inflation, rising interest rates and a succession of natural disasters are putting pressure on Australians and on our economy. Against this backdrop, we are still delivering cost-of-living relief in a targeted way. We're investing in a stronger and more resilient economy. We are doing what those opposite talked about a lot but failed to do, and we are beginning the hard yards of budget repair.
We can't clean up the mess overnight, but we are working every day to build a better future for Australians, no matter where they live. Like almost 30 per cent of Australians, I call regional Australia home. That's why I'm incredibly proud that our budget contains more than 760 initiatives for regional communities and regional industries. I know that our regional communities are not the same—they are as diverse as the people that call them home—but they face very similar challenges.
We have a vision for regional Australia, one where our regional communities benefit from all of our policies, whether it's increased jobs in the renewable energy sector, access to secure housing, better connectivity or strong, locally led solutions. Our vision looks beyond the election cycle. It looks beyond electorates and postcodes. After 10 years of rorts from those opposite, we are stepping up and prioritising fair and equitable funding for our regions.
Out budget has committed $1 billion over three years towards regional funding programs: the Growing Regions Program and the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program. These programs will be delivered in a way that is fair, has integrity and is accountable. We know our local governments are front and centre in servicing our regional communities. As a former mayor, I know all too well the difference federal funding can make for our regional communities. I know that the difference between a regional community thriving and one just surviving goes well beyond efficient roads and rubbish. That's why this government has committed to re-establishing the Council of Australian Local Governments as an opportunity for ministers to hear directly from the local government sector about the issues impacting them. In addition to re-establishing the Council of Australian Local Governments, Labor is committed to putting local government on National Cabinet and on the Council on Federal Financial Relations once a year. I'm meeting with local government ministers this Friday, which will provide a platform for the states and territories to discuss the major challenges impacting local governments across the nations. All levels of government need to work together to help communities and implement their local solutions, and our government is committed to doing that in a fair and transparent way.
Over the last six months, I've met with multiple local government and regional development representatives from all parts of Australia to discuss regional needs. Right across our country now, our regional communities are in crisis due to flooding. My thoughts remain with those communities who are working as volunteers, councilworkers, emergency personnel and community on the ground, doing an incredible job day and night preparing, responding and cleaning up from these disasters. Sadly, it is often our regional communities who bear the brunt of natural disasters, which is why our government has committed to preparing our communities for future disasters through the Disaster Ready Fund, investing $1 billion on disaster risk, reduction and resilience.
Unlike previous governments, we understand that supporting regional Australia goes well beyond the basics of grant funding. We know that regional development and regional Australians deserve so much more than that. We need fast and reliable internet and good mobile phone connectivity, which is why the government are investing heavily in the NBN and mobile phone coverage so that rural and remote communities have access. We need affordable housing in our communities, which is why the government prioritised the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. We need good educational opportunities, and that's why the government are giving priority to regional Australians in those 20,000 additional Commonwealth supported places at university.
We know that at the heart of strong regional communities people are there. We need to make sure that our budget supports all Australians through skills and training, through Medicare, through the NDIS and through child care. We are committed to ensuring regional Australia is at the centre of our nation's growth and at the forefront of our agenda. We are a government that will leave no one behind.
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (16:52): I rise to call into question the focus of this federal government on regional communities, who are the backbone of Australia's wealth, food and fibre production. I raise this question because people who live in the country have had regional infrastructure ripped away by this Labor government. All evidence so far points to their lack of regard for the nine million people who call the regions their home.
This week, Labor's October budget will celebrate its first month of delivery. That is one month of evidence of Labor's ability to manage finances, industries and the economy and represent all Australians. Despite Labor's significant increased debt and funding for election promises, infrastructure in the regions seems the only significant budget saving committed. In fact, $9.6 billion was cut from regional infrastructure in the budget. That is $4.7 billion over the forward estimates. A hefty $7 billion over the forward estimates was cut from water projects, specifically for dams, including Hells Gates Dam, Dungowan Dam, Emu Swamp Dam, the Hughenden irrigation scheme and Wyangala Dam.
In Victoria, five projects under the Roads of Strategic Importance program have had $248 million slashed across the forward estimates. Outrageously, all five are on Mallee roads. The Labor government has put on hold the safety of the residents of Mallee by withdrawing nearly a quarter of a billion dollars of funding that we on this side had allocated to the Sunraysia Highway from Ouyen to Ballarat; the Murray Valley Highway from Robinvale to Echuca; the Western Highway from Stawell to the South Australian border; the Green Triangle region, incorporating the Henty Highway from Horsham to Victoria's southern ports; and the Calder Highway, connecting Mildura to Melbourne.
What Labor fail to understand is that these roads desperately need investment to improve major trucking routes where local families, grey-haired nomads in caravans and road trains coexist. Danger is written all over this decision to cut the funding. People's lives are at stake. Many of these roads have now experienced flooding. In fact, 11 out of 12 of my shires have floods. The potholes are worse. The shoulders have been eaten away by rising waters. Farmers struggle now to get their product to port, despite the fact that they have an annual economic output of over $14 billion. Because of the ineptness of the Victorian Labor government in delivering the Murray Basin Rail Project, farmers have no alternative but to put road trains on unsatisfactory but major highway systems. And this federal government is cutting future funding. It is not good enough.
In addition, Labor have scrapped the Building Better Regions Fund, turfing 815 community applications under round 6 of the fund in the process. They have also scrapped the Community Development Grants Program. So what does the infrastructure minister, Minister King, do when she is given the keys of funding? She replaces the Better Regions Fund and Community Development Grants Program with two new programs. Those two programs have a total and reduced budget of $1 billion, and no-one in my electorate has yet seen any guidelines for them. It amounts to less than half of what this federal government was able to find for their Victorian counterparts for a suburban rail loop in Melbourne. They found $2.2 billion to bolster Premier Daniel Andrews's chances in the state election this week. This is despite the fact that the Victorian Auditor-General said he was yet to see any economic rationale for it when the federal government committed funds to it. Labor like to say that Infrastructure Australia should approve large-scale projects such as the Suburban Rail Loop. They did not go through that process either.
Thankfully for those in the regions, though, Labor have retained the Stronger Country Communities program—at least for 2022-23; they have provided no money in forward estimates for future rounds. It is only a matter of time before we see this program axed by the Labor government. We know investments in infrastructure are a key plank in growing the Australian economy, but do Labor know that? Their actions have thrown communities across the nation into uncertainty and forced them to play the waiting game—waiting for a new pavilion at their local sporting club or waiting for valuable services to be built. (Time expired)
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:57): I'm thankful for the opportunity to speak on this portfolio area, which is so important to my electorate of Solomon—the capital of the north, Darwin; Palmerston; and Greater Darwin, the rural area—but also to the whole of the Northern Territory and, of course, to our nation. It is how we are going to grow our nation by having the infrastructure to support that growth and our economic prosperity and our national security into the future.
The Albanese government's first budget, which we are discussing today, has been an absolute bonanza for the Northern Territory. I don't say that to boast, but we are proud that our federal government has seen the incredible potential in the Territory. It won't be magically realised; it needs investment, and that's what we've committed to in this budget by committing $2.5 billion—that's with a 'b'—to critical infrastructure in the Northern Territory. It is one of the largest spends in any jurisdiction, but as I continue you'll see why.
Of that money, $1.5 billion is going towards enabling infrastructure at the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct. I do acknowledge the bipartisan support for that project. This development is the centrepiece of the Northern Territory's moving towards a much more sustainable economy and of our nation's using the Territory's abundant natural resources, such as solar and the critical minerals that are vital, to helping us build lithium batteries and solar panels as we move to a net zero emissions future and a clean energy economy. What we want to do at the Middle Arm precinct is to build a renewable energy hub.
Sun Cable will be the world's largest solar power project. A lot of people ask about economic development and our renewable energy future. In the Territory we've got lots of land and we've got lots of sun. Put those two things together and what Sun Cable is talking about is approximately 30 kilometres by 30 kilometres of solar array, taking that power and using batteries not only to look after the Northern Territory and the Top End's power needs but also to export Territory sunshine to Singapore and, in the future I'm sure, other nations. That is what the Middle Arm hub is going to support. Green hydrogen and ammonia, the foundations for cleaner fuel, will also be manufactured there. We also want a data storage centre there, powered by solar with those batteries and serving global markets.
Now, it will not be a petrochemicals hub, as the NT Chief Minister has recently confirmed. As I have stated, it is going to be a multiuse facility. In fact, Chief Minister has confirmed that, to date, there haven't been any petrochemical proponents seeking to be part of Middle Arm.
We are deeply committed to protecting the environmental health of our beautiful Darwin harbour. More than 200 studies have already been undertaken by the NT government in relation to the Middle Arm precinct and at this very preliminary stage that is a lot. But there is more to come. NT and federal industry is being responsible and is taking a very responsible role because they know that for this sustainable precinct to thrive and survive we need to meet environmental standards.
I'm very happy with the investment in the north. It's important for the nation, not just the Territory, and I'm hoping to be part of a government that understands the incredible potential of the north. That's why we're spending a lot more as well on roads infrastructure and logistics hubs to get our product to market.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (17:03): Australia's 880,000 kilometres of road network underpins almost every aspect of our lives, for no-one more than the eight million people who call regional Australia home. From getting kids to and from school, to getting produce off the farm and on to market, our road network is vital for our daily lives and for the national economy. A good road network is especially important in regional and rural Australia where agricultural outputs result in a GDP contribution disproportionate to the size of our population. Good regional infrastructure—be it road, rail, energy or communication technology—underpins the efficient movement of ideas. It funds energy, people and goods and is critical to competing in a global market.
In that context it is of course disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that to fund Labor's election promises the government has taken a knife to infrastructure and regional development budgets. With larger than average harvest volumes expected this year and wetter conditions than normal, our road and rail networks are under real pressure and we need that investment. Instead, Labor has pledged $2.2 billion to the Suburban Rail Link project in metropolitan Melbourne, a project which today is being ridiculed. While I'm talking about ridicule can I turn to the federal Labor government's announcement of $10 million in my own state for regional development projects, situated at Jetty Road, Glenelg, and in Marion. You might want to know where those suburbs are. They're in metropolitan Adelaide. It is a capital city, but they're described by the minister in her press release as important regional infrastructure projects. What a joke! That $16 million would have been better off in a regional community. It might have done something for regional communities.
While I'm here, and it's consideration in detail, I thought I might ask the minister some specific questions. Minister, why have you taken the axe to $1.1 million from the forward estimates for black spot funding in South Australia? How did the Albanese Labor government come to the decision to reduce funding in South Australia for a program that saves lives? It is not reducing funding overall; I'll concede that. Funding goes up in her home state, but down in mine. These are projects that deliver real outcomes. They save lives. It's a disgrace to see that money cut from the budget. That's my first question.
My second question, Minister, is: why have you taken $1.1 billion—that's with a b, for those opposite, and referring to my friend's contribution earlier—of the promised funding for the North-South Corridor, which is the single largest and single most important project for South Australia, and moved it beyond the forward estimates? I won't describe it as a cut, but it has been pushed out. You are delaying the most significant infrastructure project for South Australia and you are putting it in the slow lane. Why are you doing that?
Now, I can't help myself; I have to refer to Senator Glenn Sterle. He's been in a bit of trouble lately. His language hasn't helped. But I want to take you back to before the last election, and I'm going to refer here to a broken commitment. We've got a few of those—275 other things. When he was, effectively, the shadow assistant minister for transport, what he said was that we would see $80 million be delivered straight up, through the Heavy Vehicle Productivity Plan, for truck stops. That's a very important project. He was talking to the Big Rigs publication and he thought maybe it wouldn't get a lot attention, but we found it. You would have thought, Minister, that 'straight up' means in the first year of your government. That's the inference. I mean, 'straight up' has got to mean 'year 1', right? So, Minister, while I accept there's an increase in the heavy vehicle productivity program in the forward estimates, where's the $80 million straight up? It's not straight up; it's over the forwards.
Also, Minister, can you tell us who the trucking representatives are going to be on the panel to provide you with that advice, because you've had six months and one day, and we still don't know who is going to be asked to provide you with that advice? I feel as though it's not just the North-South Corridor that's in the slow lane; we haven't even identified those people. So, Minister, can you please tell us why we are not seeing the $80 million spent in year 1, or straight up, to use Senator Sterle's language? And who is going to be on this panel and when are we going to know who they are?
Dr REID (Robertson) (17:07): Infrastructure is vital for the foundations of a nation. It's how we get to work. It's how we move millions of people rapidly to different parts of the country. It's how we ensure that our emergency services—our police, our fire service, our ambulance—can attend those who need them most. It is how we ensure the wellbeing and health of our people. It is how we promote inclusion and access for all. Infrastructure is community.
I want to thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Catherine King, on all the work she has completed and continues to undertake to improve the vital foundations of our country, especially on the Central Coast. I want to particularly thank the minister and her team for meeting with my office and representatives from the Central Coast Council, including the administrator, Rik Hart; directors, Boris Bolgoff and Mel Smith; and executive assistant, Madeleine Bell. The constructive dialogue between us will mean better outcomes for the people of the Central Coast.
Infrastructure throughout the electorate of Robertson, over the past decade, but particularly over the last few years, has deteriorated significantly. Insufficient federal investment and unprecedented rainfall have led to significant proportions of our public infrastructure deteriorating or not being updated to meet the immediate needs of the community. This was an issue that was discussed on many occasions when engaging with the constituents of Robertson, and I would hazard a guess that this is an issue that is discussed with members of parliament right across this country.
Here are the primary issues on the Central Coast that were discussed: the state of local roads and local sporting and recreation facilities; large craters throughout our local road network; sporting facilities with amenities that are not fit for purpose; issues with the local road network causing chaos for drivers right across our region, meaning longer commute times, difficulty accessing vital services and damage to motor vehicles; local community sporting and recreation facilities with absent female change rooms, dilapidated toilets and common areas, no storage areas and major safety hazards. These are all of significant concern to the community. It was because of these conversations—the thousands of doors knocked and the phone calls made—that we committed to upgrading our local road infrastructure and sporting facilities in the electorate of Robertson.
The $40 million Central Coast Roads Package aims to upgrade some of the worst roads in our region, roads that have impacted and continue to significantly impact motorists and emergency services. Our government looks forward to engaging and working with the Central Coast Council on multiple priority projects as part of this package. A $30 million fund for the initial stage of the upgrade of Avoca Drive has been provided in the October budget, delivering on an election commitment. A detailed scope and delivery schedule will be determined in consultation with the NSW government. Avoca Drive is a known pinch point and the missing link between different parts of the NSW Central Coast, with congestion causing significant traffic when commuters are going to work and when parents and carers are dropping the kids off at school. Even emergency services are unable to pass because of the significant traffic volume.
Then there are upgrades to the Frost Reserve sporting facility, which has not been upgraded in decades and is now no longer fit for purpose, even though thousands of families use these facilities frequently. The project's intent is to construct a new amenities building at Frost Reserve to provide an area for members and teams within the surrounding community. The proposed upgrades for this facility will have a positive impact on sporting clubs, like the Kincumber Roos Football Club, and include female changing rooms and upgrades to the canteen. These upgrades are necessary, and they are essential. This is nation-building.
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (17:13): In my electorate we're fortunate enough to have not one but two exceptional regional universities—Charles Sturt University in Port Macquarie and Southern Cross University in Coffs Harbour. These institutions provide more than just tertiary education. They have evolved into community centres, providing services outside of the standard educational remit, and now are business hubs, meetings facilities and also health providers. Coffs Harbour's Southern Cross University had the opportunity and the vision to provide a holistic health campus that would not only act as a centre for learning but also relieve the significant pressures on the health system in the wider Coffs coast area. There are, as in many regional and remote locations, significant waiting lists for services such as occupational therapy, and this facility would have catered for those needs while providing a world-class education to regional students—clearly, a win-win.
The former coalition government had budgeted $27.5 million to see this through, as it answered many of the needs for the broader community in a cost-effective way. There would have been no need for costly land acquisitions or a tender process to secure the right management team for these services. It was a shovel-ready project. It had been meticulously planned by a trusted institution over a number of years. Stage 2 of the health campus would have provided a community health clinic with speech and voice labs, mental health and therapy rooms, rehabilitation and exercise studios, and consultation rooms. It would have catered for an additional 800 domestic students to be trained in the regions and likely stay in the regions to practice upon completion of their degree. But, unfortunately, despite our community needing this desperately, the Labor budget ripped it away.
In my electorate, we have relied on funding from programs such as the Building Better Regions Fund to provide capital for crucial large investment projects on the Mid North Coast, such as the world-class dementia village that is currently under construction in Port Macquarie. The funding provided $6.5 million in 2020 to the amazing facility, taking gold standard practices from the Netherlands and replicating them here in an Australian first, catering for a region with some of the highest rates of dementia per capita in the country.
The Building Better Regions Fund that supported a critical facility like this was labelled waste and pork-barrelling. When the announcement came that the Building Better Regions Fund had been slashed, every applicant in my electorate who had taken the time and, in some cases, spent a vast amount of money to apply for the last round reached out in disgust and despair. There were projects such as the Bellingen Shire Council sewerage works—and I appreciate that it might not have been a sexy project. During periods of heavy rainfall or coastal inundation, Bellingen's system overflows, leaching into natural water systems and creating waste and health concerns. This project would have resolved longstanding water contamination issues that had devastated the local aquaculture industry, increased industrial and commercial business opportunities and created the opportunity for increased investment and jobs, as well as assisted in addressing environmental issues.
I ask this new government: how will initiatives such as these be funded in the regions in the future? If this is the well-being budget, is it truly for the nation or is it just for metro areas? By reducing or slashing funds previously allocated to regional areas, how are they expected to cater for the influx of population that we continue to see? Perhaps this government can start an advertising campaign funnelling people who want to move to the regions into Labor seats, as they appear to be the only ones they are willing to support despite the fact they cover less than 10 per cent of my state in New South Wales.
Mr REPACHOLI (Hunter) (17:18): The Albanese Labor government handed down its first budget. I'm pleased to say that it was a budget for the people in the Hunter electorate that is in the regions that were neglected for so long under the former government, who didn't care about the regions then and still don't care about them now. This is a budget that invests in the projects that Australians need to build a better future. It is a great budget for families, and it is a great budget for our nation.
I want to thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for recognising the projects that really matter to the people of the Hunter that is in the regions. There is a lot in the budget for the people of the Hunter electorate, such as investments in infrastructure projects and many other projects that will benefit us all in the Hunter. Childcare costs are a huge issue for families. Our cheaper childcare policy will see 6,300 families in the Hunter electorate better off. There's also the extended paid parental leave, giving more time to families at that important time of life when they're welcoming a new baby.
The people of the Hunter electorate can also expect to see cheaper medicines, which will save them up to $450 per year, helping them with the cost of living. I was elected to be a strong voice for the Hunter, and this government has certainly heard me. This budget has delivered over $400 million of our election commitments right across the Hunter electorate, that is, once again, in the regions. The Muswellbrook bypass is a big-ticket item being delivered. The project will construct a New England Highway bypass of Muswellbrook, and the Albanese government has allocated $268 million for this bypass which, once again, is in the regions. The New England Highway is part of the Inland Sydney to Brisbane National Land Transport Network and a primary route for connecting the Upper Hunter with Maitland and Newcastle. Once again, it is in the regions. The highway currently passes right through the centre of Muswellbrook. It carries between 11,000 and 20,000 vehicles through the township each day, with about 13 per cent of them being heavy vehicles. The bypass will improve travel times by providing a free-flowing 100 kilometre per hour alternative route. This project is expected to support more than 1,800 direct jobs and also indirect jobs in the regions. The bypass will bring improved safety for all road users in the town centre, particularly in terms of heavy and light vehicle interactions, and it will improve the livability of the Muswellbrook area.
That's why we are also investing in the Muswellbrook town centre project. I was lucky enough to have the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government visit there last week. The project will help to better link the town's historic buildings and provide open spaces to host community and cultural events. It also includes a playground, pavilion structure, alfresco dining spaces, roads and car parks. We are also upgrading sporting and community facilities, with the Muswellbrook Olympic Park upgrade, the Muswellbrook preschool playgroup, an upgrade for the Singleton Alroy Oval precinct, and the Singleton Bulls rugby club amenities fit-out to finish off the women's change rooms to encourage more women in sport. These are much-needed upgrades to modernise the facilities and increase participation in sport, which is something that I'm very passionate about.
The minister also visited Cessnock where we showed her the Cessnock Regional Skate Park, the BMX facility at Carmichael Park and the Cessnock Goannas lighting upgrade. Lake Macquarie City Council will also receive funding for Mandalong Road upgrades—$56 million to be exact. There is money for a dredge for Lake Macquarie and a grouting fund. There is funding for Mums Cottage upgrades; for Urban River projects; for the Lake Macquarie North West Catalyst Area; and for the Edgeworth Eagles fencing and lighting.
Once again, I would like to thank the minister for coming down and seeing the benefit in helping out the regions of the Hunter Valley, as we've helped out many regions around Australia. Those opposite will continue to say that we don't help the regions, but only a Labor government cares for regions that have been left behind for the last decade by a disgraceful and unwanted government. Now we have got a government in that cares about people and cares about our regions.
Dr RYAN (Kooyong) (17:22): I ask a question of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Minister, in this budget, your government committed $1.5 billion in equity investment for the development of the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory. We know that opening the gas field between Katherine and Tennant Creek, the Beetaloo Basin, was the first cab off the rank for the previous government's critically condemned and electorally rejected gas led recovery. We have to remember that this funding for Middle Arm was not this government's idea. It was the member for New England who announced billions in funding for the Middle Arm precinct as part of the former government's five basins gas plan. This seems a peculiar name for an allocation of funding that we are now led to believe is not a subsidy for a gas plan. It has been very difficult to get a straight answer from anyone in this government about what this precinct is for.
The Tamboran CEO has promised that its acquisition of gas assets in the Beetaloo basin will 'bring significant employment and royalties to the Northern Territory'. Can we trust this promise? He has also said that Tamboran's fracking of the Beetaloo basin would be a net-zero gas project. This is like claiming to have invented a smoke-free fire. According to him again: 'Gas that will be extracted from Beetaloo will be necessary for a full range of industrial purposes at the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct near Darwin.' This includes ammonia and urea production for fertiliser, hydrogen production, energy-intensive manufacturing, power generation and LNG export. The UN chief, Antonio Guterres, recently said:
Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness. Such investments will soon be stranded assets—a blot on the landscape and a blight on investment portfolios.
Members of the critical minerals industry are very concerned that investors in critical minerals—investors making decisions about funding clean energy projects—will withdraw their investments if the precinct is powered by gas. They fear that this $1.5 billion in federal funding jeopardises the private investment we so desperately need to supercharge the critical minerals industry in Australia.
Climate scientists have been saying for years that the Northern Territory is highly vulnerable to climate impacts, particularly those from sea level rise given its low-lying coastal areas and its extreme tides. Repeated studies by independent bodies like the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology have clearly shown that large parts of Darling Harbour, including Middle Arm, will be underwater well before 2100, possibly as early as 2050, even under projected low greenhouse gas emission scenarios. This leads a whole new dimension to the idea of stranded assets. This project has not yet been subjected to a full environmental impact assessment. My questions to the minister are: Do you respect the scientific reports of the CSIRO and the latest IPCC climate modelling, and give credence to their modelling about rising sea levels in the Northern Territory? If not, what evidence can you present to this parliament that this project does not pose serious health, climate and environmental risks to the people of the Northern Territory and beyond?
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) (17:26): There are a number of questions that were asked throughout the debate, here, and I will try and answer as many of those as I can in the short period of time we've got left. I'd say, particularly to the member for Kooyong—and I'm really happy to facilitate this—this is a project of the Northern Territory government. It's really critical to put the Northern Territory economy onto a footing where it starts to get revenue to be able to provide services for the people of the Northern Territory. Without it, their budget is in huge trouble, and frankly, I really would encourage you to go and talk to them. I'd go and have a look at the project. The environmental approvals have, obviously, not been given yet. There is a process that has to be gone through, both from the state planning point of view and the federal point of view, and I will leave that, respectfully, to the planning and environment ministers to do. My job as the infrastructure minister is to look at where we can invest to help economies to grow. They've had already, as I understand it—having viewed the project myself—over 30 different expressions of interest from investors. The large proportion of those are from clean energy investors, but I really would encourage you to go and have a look and talk to them, and understand from the Northern Territory government's perspective why this is so critical to them for the future of the Northern Territory.
I do want to make a couple of points to those opposite. I think they were in government for so long that they've got to the point where they've failed to understand the difference between a decision of government and an election commitment. To the member for Cowper, particularly: in relation to the Southern Cross University, that was an election commitment. Whilst the March budget contained a measure for education infrastructure, no decisions of government had actually been taken as to where that funding would happen, let alone the money even having been appropriated in the budget. Senator McKenzie went around the country during the election campaign announcing this was how she would spend the money, if re-elected. She did that in my own community. My university was absolutely adamant and understood that that was an election commitment. I explained that to them. The member for Cowper clearly has not understood the difference between a decision of government and an election commitment.
I'm really proud of the commitments this budget makes to regional Australia. We are, in fact, increasing, over a 10-year period, money under the Infrastructure Investment Program for our regions, and we are increasing the number of projects that are across regional Australia as well. It really does go to the breadth and depth of our regions across the country, whether it is major projects in Victoria and Tasmania, in Queensland with the Bruce Highway, and along the Tanami in the Northern Territory, which I visited recently. These are hugely life-changing projects for many of the communities along the Tanami. This is what we're delivering through this budget.
We do know that there are significant problems with local roads at the moment. It is why, discussed during the election campaign and delivered through this budget, we've increased the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure fund by $250 million for regional, rural and periurban communities, taking this round up to $750 million. That will certainly go a long way to help many of the regional communities who are desperately looking to try and upgrade and improve their roads at the moment. We are investing $80 million to deliver heavy vehicle rest areas.
I'd say again to the member for Barker, who made some claims that the budget had delayed projects: projects are delayed. That is what's happening across the country at the moment; I don't know if he's noticed. The front page of his own newspaper in South Australia is clearly saying it. Projects are delayed, and they're delayed for a whole range of reasons, but one of them is that the previous government was so focused on getting press releases out, getting their pamphlets out and standing up there and saying, 'This is a media opportunity,' that they never committed enough money for half these projects. So we've got a significant problem in relation to actually getting these projects delivered because the previous government was so focused on the press releases and the rah-rah around them rather than on actually delivering them in the first place.
We also know that there are labour constraints and skills shortages. We've got significant problems. So the budget doesn't delay projects; projects are delayed, and we have had to align the funding in the budget with the actual delivery so that we don't have significant underspend in infrastructure, as we did under the previous government, of billions of dollars that we could not get out the door. That's billions of dollars we couldn't get out the door under the previous government that would have been employing people, flowing through regional economies and actually ensuring the economic growth of the future. I'm determined that we'll get the infrastructure investment pipeline and clean up the mess that has been left by the previous government. We've got a long way to go yet, but I'm very proud that this budget starts that process, commits more money to the regions and makes sure we have fair and equitable funding across all regions, not just those that the National Party holds.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Social Services Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $1,370,070,000
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence) (17:32): The Albanese Labor government is committed to investing in and supporting those most vulnerable within our community. We have a whole range of measures in this budget that provide some really important supports for some of the most vulnerable people right throughout the nation, particularly for women and children fleeing domestic violence, for our older Australians and for people with a disability.
This government is committed to ending violence against women and children, and in this budget we saw an investment of $1.7 billion over six years which focuses on prevention and early intervention activities. It includes a continuation of funding to support a range of responses and initiatives to support the new National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This, very importantly, includes just over $169 million over four years to fund 500 new frontline workers to support women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence right across the country.
Through some of those initiatives, I'd particularly like to talk about the national plan. In October, the federal government along with our state and territory colleagues officially launched the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. It outlined our shared vision to end gender based violence within one generation. The national plan is our government's strong commitment to 10 years of sustained action, effort and partnership across governments and the sector to work towards eliminating all forms of gender based violence within the country. Of course, the national plan is underpinned by prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing. This plan is so vitally important.
We also have the recently established Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission, which will provide a formal mechanism for consultation with victims-survivors and work to create a supportive and structured approach to engagement at a national level. These voices will help to inform the priorities for policy, research and data collection. At the heart of this are victims survivors. They must be at the heart of the solutions. We know we can only find effective solutions—they can only be developed with people who have been most impacted by such violence. The new commissioner, Micaela Cronin, has recently been appointed. The commissioner will promote coordination across all state and territory jurisdictions in the sector to provide support and enable a system that works together and provides a much more holistic approach. The commissioner will also be able to monitor and look at the progress of the very important national plan. I note the multipartisan support for this government's actions when it comes to eliminating violence against women and children in one generation. I know that everyone in this parliament is absolutely committed to working together to that aim.
The commissioner's role is a very important one. Micaela Cronin brings a wealth of experience, particularly in the community services sector. Very importantly, Ms Cronin started her career as a crisis counsellor at a women's refuge. She also wants the voices of victims-survivors at the centre of her work and at the centre of what the commission does moving forward. It's very important to have this new national commission and commissioner. It's so important that we all send the strong message that this is on the national agenda and is very important to all of us.
On providing support for vulnerable people, our government is committed to providing support for older Australians, for our seniors, the people who built this nation. We have brought in a range of measures in relation to them, particularly to provide support to ease cost-of-living pressures. These include incentivising pensioners into the workforce, increasing the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card income test and incentives for pensioners looking to downsize their homes. The budget included measures to provide that assistance, particularly the 50,000 additional self-funded retirees having access to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. That will make a huge difference to many older Australians.
We have many measures, including giving older Australians the choice and the flexibility to work, through the passage of legislation, which is really important, which means that people of age-pension age will benefit from an increase to the maximum work bonus. It is so vitally important for them. This government is committed to providing so much more support for all of our vulnerable Australians.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (17:37): I commend the minister, who just outlined the best parts of the budget from a social services perspective, which were all measures inherited by the government from the opposition. Indeed, they are measures that were contained in a bill introduced into the parliament in February. I also commend the minister for her very fine words in relation to violence against women and children and the work that the government is doing. We will provide bipartisan support on that.
In light of those well-meaning words, it is very hard to understand how one of the largest pieces of new expenditure in this budget—$217 million to abolish the cashless debit card—accords with the stated objective to reduce violence against women and children. We know the consequences of abolishing the CDC for vulnerable communities will be dire, particularly for women and children, who will see a flood of drugs and alcohol in those communities. I will put on the record that the ministers are good people and would not deliberately do that, but how on earth can you justify taking a measure that is going to cost $217 million to put drugs and alcohol into those communities? I ask the minister to detail how that eye-watering expenditure of $217 million, the so-called enhanced BasicsCard, will differ from the already successful and functional cashless debit card. Is this $217 million to rebuild something—to call it a different name—that will have the same functionality and support, importantly, from the community as the card that it's replacing? It's very clear that the government put themselves into a corner here. They announced that they were abolishing the CDC, then realised the devastating consequences that would have but, stubbornly, instead of walking away from it, they have continued and are going to spend $217 million in order to do that.
I also want to know from the minister, in detail, what coordination, support and consultation have been provided to the communities in the following areas: Ceduna and the surrounding areas, East Kimberley, Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—not a telephone number that people can call, but what actual support is being provided to the services on the ground that are waiting nervously for the flood of devastation that is going to hit them. That's what I have for the Social Services portfolio.
In relation to the NDIS, the minister went to the election making a lot of promises. He very happily raised expectations. He very happily created an expectation that no plan would ever go backwards on his watch. It was all going to be a utopia. It was all going to be rainbows and lollipops under this minister. He also made clear before the election that he thought the scheme was sustainable as it was, that the only people referring to sustainability, those nasty Liberals, were out of step. Now he claims that the scheme 'is growing in its cost base too quickly'. When's he going to fess up to the people, for whom he created expectations, prior to the election? He said before the election that there were some people saying there was going to be a catastrophic disaster happening in the NDIS:
You can't move around the corridors of Parliament in Canberra without tripping over a Coalition Minister whispering the Scheme is unsustainable.
I'm here to tell you … that is a lie.
Can the minister finally make clear, what is his position on the sustainability of the NDIS? Level with the Australian people. Be honest with the Australian people. If the more than half a million Australian participants should be worried about your views on the sustainability and what you will be hoping to do following the NDIS review, level with them now and make it clear, because before the election you said no plans would go backwards on your watch and that the scheme was sustainable as it is. So if you are now walking away from that, make it clear and apologise for the expectations that you raised in those vulnerable half a million participants and their families. (Time expired)
Ms MILLER-FROST (Boothby) (17:43): I rise to speak on some of the many ways in which the Social Services portfolio is supporting Australian families and communities in the 2022-23 budget. This budget delivers on the Albanese Labor government's election commitments. In short, we are doing what we told the Australian people we would do. The government has moved swiftly and with great energy to address issues that affect just about every Australian family in some way, and I will talk about some of those ways today. The government is working to tackle gender inequality—namely, by improving our paid parental leave scheme and investing in early childhood education and development.
We are modernising Australia's paid parental leave scheme, making it easier for families to use it in ways that work for their family. To do this, we are investing $531.6 million over four years to progressively expand the scheme, by adding two weeks a year to provide a total of 26 weeks by 1 July 2025, and we are introducing gender neutral claiming to allow either parent to claim first. We are increasing the flexibility of the scheme, so the entire entitlement can be taken in blocks as small as one day at a time with periods of work and within two years of the date of birth or adoption. To support families and incentivise both parents to access the scheme, it will reserve a dedicated use-it-or-lose-it portion for each parent. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, chaired by Sam Mostyn AO, will assist in the finalisation of the changes to the scheme to ensure that the final model supports women's economic participation and gender equality. Taken together, these measures will deliver great flexibility for families and support both parents to spend more time with their newborn children.
The Albanese Labor government is also investing in early childhood education and development to ensure that every Australian child can reach their full potential. Our investments are designed to target children and families for support during what the evidence shows us are the most crucial years of their development. We have committed $4.2 million to develop a whole-of-Commonwealth early years strategy to set out our vision for Australia's children. This investment will support a comprehensive engagement and consultation strategy, including a national summit and research into what is important for our children to thrive.
I was delighted to join Ministers Rishworth and Aly and my friend the member for Adelaide last Friday to announce the date for the National Early Years Summit, scheduled to take place in Parliament House on 17 February next year. The Early Years Strategy will focus on the Commonwealth's role in early childhood and on creating a more integrated and coordinated approach to early childhood development. It will also seek to increase accountability for the wellbeing, education, health and development of children.
Playgroups and toy libraries provide accessible and affordable spaces, resources and opportunities for children to play together and for parents and carers to seek social and parenting support, and this government understands that. When my triplet sons were born 23 years ago tomorrow—happy birthday to them—I was in a rural area. I know the importance of being able to access the local toy library and local playgroups for my own personal socialisation but also for their socialisation. These universal services are also a key entry point for vulnerable families. They improve the early development and wellbeing of children and parent-child relationships and increase feelings of belonging and connection in families with their communities.
That's why this budget provides $12.4 million over four years to increase support for playgroups and toy libraries across Australia. The measure will support increased access to community and volunteer run playgroups with a focus on regional and remote locations where known gaps exist. It will also support culturally and linguistically diverse families and children with disability or development concerns. It will also support the development of new intergenerational playgroups which provide an opportunity for isolated older Australians in residential and other settings to engage in positive community interactions. So my question for the minister is: what other measures are in place through the 2022-23 budget to support Australian families and Australian children?
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (17:47): I am pleased to be in this place to ask a question of the minister. I don't think I've ever seen so many people in the Federation Chamber. I will provide the question first and then list the reasons why. My question to the minister is: why has this government sat on their hands in delivering increased work bonus caps for aged pensioners who wish to work to alleviate cost-of-living pressures?
Back in June, the Leader of the Opposition proposed a policy that would benefit older Australians while plugging a gap in the workforce market—namely, that there should be an increase to the work bonus income cap to double its current level, taking it from $300 to $600 per fortnight. This was widely acknowledged as sensible at the time. Subsequently, on 3 August, Senator the Hon. Dean Smith, a Liberal senator for Western Australia, introduced a private senator's bill entitled Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022, which contained this very policy.
Please pay particular attention to the dates that are being mentioned here in June and August. In the first week of September, Labor held the national jobs summit, and we waited with bated breath for a response from the unions and Labor to advise us of their silver bullets to solve the workforce shortages and secure sustainable wage growth for both the short and long term. This came some four weeks later, when, on 28 September, a renamed workforce incentive bill was introduced to the House.
I took particular interest in this claim when the Minister for Social Services stated, in reference to the Jobs and Skills Summit, that:
During this consultation, stakeholders and peak bodies representing older Australians advised that many age pensioners and other pensioners over age pension age are motivated to contribute to the workforce and are an underutilised group …
Four weeks later! Well, that golden revelation must have been a complete surprise considering we'd already put a bill forward outlining exactly that two months prior! And for the minister to state upon the second reading that the skills summit 'presented an enormous opportunity to examine potential solutions' was indeed a stretch, even for Labor! There was an enormous missed opportunity to pass a bill that outlined almost identical but stronger measures in the prior financial quarter rather than allow another quarter to lapse without effective action. I won't labour any longer on the failure for Labor to deliver 'a watered-down version of a coalition bill'.
The first two schedules in the latest workforce incentives bill replicate almost identically the measures provided by the coalition's earlier bills, and we waited an additional financial quarter to see this introduced! Where this bill differs in schedule 3, which takes the coalition's version of doubling the pensioners' work bonus per fortnight and reduces it to effectively increase it of over just 50 per cent, let's be frank, it hardly has the same kind of driving incentive to rejoin the workforce—does it? And this third schedule outlines the aforementioned reduction available only on a temporary basis to 31 December 2023, so it's available for just over 12 months. Comparatively, the coalition alternative could have been passed in September—not late November—and then being available for a longer period for an annual review.
I will ask the minister again: Why has this government obstructed and delayed the introduction of the increased work bonus cap for aged pensioners who wish to contribute further to the workplace across the nation? What do you say to the aged pensioners in my electorate of Cowper who have waited a further two months to access additional employment income to pay for their higher bills? Why has the government rejected access to an ongoing higher work bonus cap from January 2024?
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (17:52): I would like to ask the minister about the ways the budget supports vulnerable people in my electorate. I am really pleased about the Albanese government's commitment to make women's safety a national priority. The prevention of domestic violence, and support for local women and children who are experiencing domestic violence, is a key concern in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast. The problem is being deeply exacerbated by the housing crisis, all too often leaving women with no other choice but to stay with violent partners because they just cannot find another home to go to.
Women and children are struggling to access services and being left in harm's way in the process. I want to share a couple of these heartbreaking stories. I won't use names, but their stories are powerful nonetheless.
I received this email from a local Shoalhaven woman just yesterday, and my office is looking at how we can support her. She said:
I am making contact with you knowing your much respected interest in helping women of domestic violence in the Shoalhaven.
I am your key demographic on this matter, and my family and I have experienced the depths of this over many years, now ending up with us being homeless despite the assistance so far from services.
The housing crisis has hit us hard, and we have been disadvantaged by every loophole we have found along the way in a system that desperately needs looking at.
Another email from last month:
I recently moved back to the Shoalhaven after leaving Sydney to escape domestic violence with my two young children and am 19 weeks pregnant.
I am currently staying with family but am trying to secure a rental before my baby is born.
I have applied for no less than 30 houses that are within my price range in the past six weeks.
I have been informed by a real estate agent that my applications are getting denied because I am being honest that I have fled domestic violence.
She goes on to say:
How are women supposed to leave without support for their families or with housing?
I was relieved to be able to help this mother find some housing. But she says that we need more local support for people fleeing domestic violence, and I agree. Too many women cannot get the support they need when they reach out for help, due to funding and staffing shortages in shelters and crisis centres. But this budget invests $1.7 billion in women's safety. The budget delivers substantial funding for prevention, early intervention and response initiatives to address family, domestic and sexual violence. This includes $39.6 million this financial year to meet increased demand for the escaping violence payment. We are also delivering 500 additional frontline service and community workers, supporting women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence. Half of these jobs will be in rural, regional and remote areas, and I know the Shoalhaven will have some of these places prioritised in our community. This will go some way to addressing the issues that young mum raised with me. It's a huge job, but we are making a start because local women and children can't afford to wait.
I'm proud that the Albanese government is improving outcomes for the 4.4 million Australians with a disability. I recently met with Wade from Berry. Wade is a local institution. He runs Rekindle Me, working with local businesses to reuse e-waste. He will recycle anything with a cord. He recycled over six tons of materials in just three months. How amazing is that? All of this is made even more amazing by the fact that Wade lives with a disability, experiencing mobility issues, amongst other things. But Wade doesn't let that stop him. I'm delighted that this budget is working to support local people with a disability, including investing $19.4 million to extend the disability employment services for another two years, while innovative work is undertaken to build an improved model for disability employment.
The budget also provides $32.3 million to build up to 400 new changing places and toilets for people with higher support needs. This week I welcomed Annette Pham to Parliament House. One of Annette's many hats is a mum and disability advocate. Annette has fought long and hard for changing places amenities, and this week I got to show her the fruits of her fight here, in Parliament House. It was a great moment. Thank you to Annette and everyone who fights to improve the lives of people living with a disability.
My question to the minister is: in addition to these measures that boost safety, security and equality for Australian people, what other supports for vulnerable communities does this budget deliver?
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (17:57): It has been remarked a lot in the chamber and, indeed, in the community that this budget was a shocker—an absolute shocker! The government spoke about the budget for one morning and we've scarcely heard about it since, quite understandably. Having been involved in a few budgets as a Treasury minister in my time, I can say that it was remarkable for a few reasons. One is how little was contained in it. In fact, most MYEFOs I've been involved with have included more than this so-called budget.
Emblematic of that in one area—but no more than any other—was housing. We saw the farcical announcement on budget night about one million homes. It was a farcical announcement. It sounded pretty farcical in the speech, and then, when we drilled down, it just got worse and worse. A million homes is what was described in the speech. Then we learn it was an aspiration for a million homes. Then we learn it's not a million homes that the government is going to fund or build or be involved with. No, it's a million homes that are the 'business as usual' homes that are built every five years in this country. Indeed, for the last five full calendar years, more than a million homes have been built in Australia—1,029,000. So the government is saying that, from the middle of 2024, they'll build fewer homes than were built in the five years preceding them coming into government.
Then we find out about the accord, which is code for 'more meetings'. The way to solve the housing problems in Australia is to have more meetings. I note that the housing minister has been sidelined. The Treasurer's leading this. The Treasurer's leading the accord because he doesn't feel he can entrust the housing minister. I want to know that what we found out out of the so-called accord is that 10,000 new homes are actually what the so-called accord will deliver—not the million homes, but the 10,000 homes under the accord. But then there was the further detail that the outcome of the so-called accord will only commence from 1 July 2024.
My question to the minister is: can the minister explain to vulnerable families and those doing it tough why they're expected to struggle for another two winters before the minister and government's so-called accord actually start delivering? That's not being built on 1 July 2024, but they'll start, presumably, on 1 July 2024. Can the minister confirm the point at which the delivery of those homes will commence under the accord? And when will people doing it tough now be able to apply to live in one of those homes? Will that be in 2025 or 2026? Will it be three, four or five winters they will have to do it tough?
The minister and the government also announced 30,000 social and affordable homes over five years. As a former housing minister, I say that time is of the essence with these things. We proudly set up and established the National Housing Finance Investment Corporation, and, a credit to the government, they've adopted that body and taken on the home guarantee program I put in place. We're very, very pleased that they will continue with those. We asked them not to tinker with them, not to change them and not to destroy them, because they are very successful programs.
After six months in office, I want the minister to outline how many homes out of the 30,000 promised have been started. We're six months into a three-year term. We're a fair way through the term now. How many of the 30,000 have been delivered? I suspect none have been delivered. It would be unfair for me to ask the minister to have delivered homes in six months, but how many have been started? How many of the 30,000 that were promised have commenced? For those people who might be watching and wondering if they can live in one of those homes, what's the process for them to actually obtain the ability to apply to live in one of those homes if one of those homes exists and has been started? After six months, most reasonable people would expect that, if you've promised 30,000, you should have at least started a few. It will be interesting to hear if the minister can elaborate on what has actually been done rather than the promises with no delivery that we've seen thus far.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (18:02): I'm going to take this opportunity to respond to some of the questions I've been asked in the social services portfolio. Firstly, I'll go to the cashless debit card. The minister used a lot of emotion—as happens in this debate—but, of course, not a lot of evidence. The fundamental part of his question was: where is the money in the budget going? He should know. The budget under the previous government had all the support services and cashless debit card sites. There were things like the youth mentoring program, the parent education support program, including life skills development, the home budgeting skills in Wyndham, the community navigator programs, and financial literacy and digital literacy. The funding ended for all of these programs on 1 July 2023. The former government had not put the services the communities wanted in the budget. So this budget gives some security to those really important community run services. He asked, 'What consultation?' That was the message that I got clearly from communities. They want programs that work, programs that have runs on the board, programs that make a difference. They are the programs we are investing in and ensuring continue to get the funding that was not put in the budget by the previous minister.
I thank the member for Boothby for highlighting some of the really important areas in this budget. The member for Boothby highlighted that this budget was a family-friendly budget, particularly in the area of social services, whether it was our paid parental leave or whether it was recognising that playgroups and toy libraries are so important. One of the really nice elements that will be happening in the playgroups is that the intergenerational playgroups that will be re-established to ensure that older Australians are connected with our youngest Australians and that those really wonderful opportunities are made. Our paid parental leave and Early Years Strategy are really a blueprint of how our government can be both family and child friendly and put children in the centre.
We got a very, very interesting question about the work bonus. There was chest thumping and, 'Why didn't you do this in June?' The election was 21 May! You'd think if this work bonus was such a great idea, the former government would have put it in their budget in March. They had the opportunity to lay this out in March—in fact, they had nine years to lay it out—and chose not to do it. They hadn't drafted any legislation and they hadn't done any costings. They used it as a political grandstanding opportunity. Well, we're doing things methodically and consistently. It's been six months and we've got runs on the board, including this seniors work bonus boost to their income. This pensioners boost went through the parliament and will start on 1 December. I hope the shadow minister and everyone else will be promoting this opportunity to seniors because pensioners are really important. This adds to our many other initiatives. Senior Australians have been ringing me, so excited that they are now eligible the seniors health card, a measure we were able to deliver.
I would also like to thank the member for Gilmore for speaking around the really good investment that we are making in family and domestic violence, which I'll finish on. Family, domestic and sexual violence are a scourge on this country. We need to do better and we need to invest in the things that work. I'm very proud of a government that is making a record investment. We have launched the national plan, which provides a blueprint for states, territories and the Commonwealth to be pulling in the same direction. It is critically important to making sure that we shift the dial, and we are determined to end this in one generation.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (18:07): We're currently experiencing an unprecedented level of housing demand in rural and regional Australia, including in my electorate. During the pandemic, house prices in Indi increased by up to 34 per cent in some parts. Rental payments in regional Victoria have also increased significantly in the last couple of years and remain high still. A study by the national housing welfare organisation, Everybody's Home, conducted in March 2022 found that 40.6 per cent of renters in Indi experience housing stress and 61.4 per cent of homeowners in Indi were under mortgage stress.
In Indi, we know that the problem with housing affordability is not just rising prices; it's also supply. There are simply not enough houses. I met with constituents in Wodonga who'd submitted over 170 rental applications before finding a place. There are families in Indi who've worked hard to save a deposit, only to find there are no houses listed for sale within miles. The lack of affordable housing in Indi has disastrous flow-on economic impacts. If 10 per cent of workplace positions can't be filled due to housing shortages, this flows on to a $200 million economic loss to our region. The regions will lose tens of millions of dollars in economic activity if the housing crisis is not addressed.
Local councils are working hard to approve new lots for houses, with a large influx of people who've moved to the regions. After Wangaratta saw a three per cent population increase over a five-year period, the local council identified more land for housing development. Unfortunately, they also identified that the current sewerage system simply couldn't cope with this increase. So they can't build those houses, and they can't open that land.
With council budgets now facing more and more unexpected costs, into the hundreds and thousands of dollars, to repair roads after the floods, there simply isn't the funding—there wasn't before, and there certainly isn't now—for enabling infrastructure which would unblock supply. This is a really big problem. Without it, regional communities like Wangaratta, Benalla and Mansfield are simply not given the opportunity to thrive. I'm the first to say there's no single silver bullet to this problem; it's complex. But there are evidence based solutions to address these obstacles. For example, they could be addressed by the proposal I took to the previous government and the people of Indi during the election to establish a regional housing infrastructure fund—a dedicated fund to build critical infrastructure which would help unlock more housing supply in rural and regional Australia specifically. Infrastructure from streetlights and water supply to community gardens and childcare centres would be a pathway for rural councils to partner with community organisations, like BeyondHousing in my electorate, to make applications and to underwrite the costs of the enabling infrastructure.
Another solution has been put forward by local councils from Indi. Again, we know the problem; we're trying to come forward with solutions. The eight local government areas and three alpine resort management boards led by Tourism North East are proposing to establish the North East Workforce Management and Appropriate Housing project or the NEWMAH project. This is an innovative set of ideas and an innovative project that seeks government investment to address the lack of appropriate and affordable housing and, in turn, the challenges of retaining key workers. It seeks to do this by partnering with government in the NEWMAH project itself and subsequently approaching government for loans to construct workplace accommodation—not a handout; loans. It's an exciting, sensible and evidence based proposal, and I really hope to see its eventuality. I really look forward to discussing this with the Minister for Housing in my forthcoming meeting with her.
Under this government's first budget, they announced their $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to build social and affordable housing. They announced the National Housing Accord, an agreement between all levels of government and investors in the construction sector to address housing supply. I welcome these government policies. I also welcome the government's expansion of the NHFIC program. But I want to see it deploy more funds into the regions. So my question to the government is: how can these policies announced under the budget specifically improve housing availability and affordability in rural and regional Australia?
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (18:12): It is my pleasure to rise and speak about housing and a return of the federal government to the provision of housing, especially social housing. What has been unfortunately a reflection of the political characteristics of the government is whether they would invest in social housing or not. The colour of the federal government and their political persuasion have determined whether the federal government would invest in social housing in support of the states or not. It was Curtin and Chifley after World War II who underwent a huge venture of federal government investment in housing for returned service people. It was the Whitlam government who invested in social housing as well. Of course, right through the Hawke and Keating years, the federal government supported people to have access to safe and secure housing. During the global financial crisis, the Rudd government, with Minister Plibersek, invested in access to safe housing, rental affordability and the provision, building and construction of social housing.
I'm extremely proud that this Albanese Labor government with the Minister for Housing is returning the federal government back to the provision of social housing. Unfortunately, the problem inside Australia, as you know, Deputy Speaker, is only going to get bigger. Without the federal government at the table, we will not be able to provide and make sure that Australians have access to safe and secure housing.
It shouldn't just be the Labor Party who believes in the federal government having a constructive role in funding the provision of housing. This should be something that all of us are united on, but unfortunately it's not. What we saw in the previous government was the former minister, who was in this debate—instead of bringing the federal government to the table on the provision of social housing, he said it was a matter for the states. He said it was a matter for the states and that the federal government wasn't going to invest in social housing. That had to change, and I'm very proud that under this government we are changing it.
The other thing that the federal government is doing that is really important is making sure that people with low and middle incomes can have access to the housing market. For my generation, and the generations that will follow me, a majority of people won't be getting into the housing market. It is an extraordinary thing to think that a majority of people coming through our workforces won't be able to get into the housing market. It means that, at retirement, people aren't going to have had assets accumulating throughout their lifetime.
The disparity between those who are able to get into the housing market and those who are unable to is extraordinary. In 2018, Per Capita conducted a study that found that if you could get into the housing market your net worth at retirement was around $980,000. If you were unable to get into the housing market, if you weren't able to get a mortgage, your net worth at retirement was around $40,000. A $40,000 to $1 million disparity is absolutely massive.
Housing has been a huge wealth creator in this country. Unfortunately, when you combine that with the fact that housing has because more unaffordable, more people are being driven into the rental market, the price of rent has gone up—especially in my electorate—following the return of skilled migrants and following the pandemic, housing is becoming less affordable. The percentage of someone's income going into the rental market is becoming less and less affordable for Australians, so being able to save up money and access a deposit to get into the housing market is becoming less attainable.
We know that this is disproportionately affecting women and that women working in lower-paid industries and women who are taking bigger breaks from the workforce are finding it even more difficult to get into the housing market. It is probably right up there with tackling climate change as the key issue that people in my electorate are talking to me about right now. We need to make sure that, in this place, we are pulling all of the levers that we possibly can in order to tackle the housing affordability and housing accessibility crisis we have in Australia.
The previous government decided to leave it to the states, but, under this government and under my friend the minister, we are going to do our bit and get things moving. I am extremely proud of the fact that we're going to be building 10,000 affordable homes and 30,000 social and affordable homes as soon as we can. My question to the minister is: how quickly can we do this and how big is the impact going to be on the Australians who desperately require the federal government to support them in their housing needs?
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $418,204,000
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (18:18): The Albanese government is strengthening Australia's economic recovery by diversifying trade and investment ties and backing the recovery of Australia's visitor economy. Open trade is a net positive for Australia. Recent analysis shows that one in four Australian jobs is related to trade, and jobs in export industries pay five per cent above the national average income. Our tourism industry is also a significant employer across the country, particularly in regional areas.
In the October budget, the Albanese government made targeted investments to grow the Australian economy and create jobs by generating enhanced trade, tourism and investment opportunities. We are providing $100 million in funding towards our participation in the 2025 World Expo to be held in Osaka, Japan, an amazing city that I had the great fortune to visit last week. I understand much planning is underway, by both the Japanese government and our Japanese embassy, for the Expo in 2025. At the Osaka World Expo we will showcase our clean energy and low-emissions technologies, and strengthen our position as a trusted and reliable partner on energy security for the region.
Continuing our support for clean energy exports, the government has committed $19.6 million of funding towards the Singapore-Australia Green Economy Agreement. The agreement will advance bilateral cooperation in clean hydrogen and renewable energy trade, and, more broadly, potentially serve as a model for regional cooperation on green economy issues. The opposition is quite right that these are bipartisan issues, and we do support these good ideas when they arise.
We recognise that to meet the challenges of our time we need to deepen and diversify our trading relationships. Placing all your trade eggs in one basket has proven to be a risky economic strategy. As such, the Albanese government will deliver $4 million towards a trade 2040 task force. This is on top of our commitment to deliver new diversified market opportunities for our exporters. Our South-East Asia economic strategy to 2040 will map out further export and investment opportunities, matching Australian capabilities across sectors in South-East Asia.
Just last night the Albanese government successfully passed legislation to implement free trade agreements with India and the United Kingdom through both houses of the parliament. This is a triumph for Australian exporters. The Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement will cut tariffs for 90 per cent of Australia's exports to India, while the UK FTA will cut tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods and exports to the UK. Together, these agreements represent a major step forward, helping Australian businesses expand and support high-paying jobs.
We believe in diversifying trade with important economic partners like the European Union through the EU FTA. This huge market, with 450 million people and a GDP of $23 trillion, will deliver even more opportunities for our exporters. Unfortunately, the former government's inaction on climate change, their absolute denial of the effect of potential carbon border adjustment mechanisms by the EU and their mishandling of the submarine contract blocked our progress on this very important FTA. It was the Albanese government that brought back our trade negotiations and put the EU back on track. With those issues behind us, and those dinosaurs still over there opposite, we are on the path to conclude negotiations by the year 2023.
We know the last few years have been incredibly challenging for around 300,000 Australian businesses in the travel and tourism industry. The government is committed to growing and rebuilding the sector, so as to return it to the economic powerhouse we know it to be, and has committed $48 million to support this recovery. We are doing what we said we'd do and we are doing more. This $48 million investment in the travel and tourism sector will support marketing to attract workers to Australia's vibrant and dynamic tourism industry; invest in expanding the Hub, a portal run by the Accommodation Association of Australia; and help tourism businesses get back into the international market through activities like expos, development and marketing.
We've also opened applications for grants to upgrade caravan parks, which play a critical role in delivering affordable accommodation options for travellers, particularly families and those grey nomads who we know travel up and down the coast and around this country—to escape the winters of Victoria mainly.
On top of that, the Albanese government is providing $4.7 million over two years to modernise Tourism Research Australia's analytical offering, and $2 million over three years to Tourism Research Australia to measure the economic contribution of these all-important business events.
We are very proud to support open trade and tourism for Australia, and we know it's a bipartisan— (Time expired)
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (18:23): It's great to hear Madeleine King outline all the successes of the previous government in such a comprehensive way. It is great to hear all those details of our great successes.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will refer to the member by her seat.
Mr TEHAN: I rise to ask some fairly serious questions. When will the government respond to the dire human rights situations we are seeing in Myanmar and Iran?
In Senate estimates hearings, we heard the foreign minister say she was still 'actively considering' sanctions in relation to Myanmar. These are the same words she has used on multiple occasions since becoming the minister after the election. The coalition appreciates the sensitivities around this issue. We of course welcome the release in the past week of Australian economist Professor Sean Turnell, after 21 months in detention in Myanmar. We acknowledge the work of the government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in securing that outcome—work which built on that of the former minister Senator Marise Payne. The ongoing work of the government through ASEAN to increase pressure on the military junta builds on foundations set by the former government. It is important that Australia continues to work with regional partners to increase pressure on Myanmar, and sanctions should be on the table as part of that. Does the government agree it is time it was upfront with Australians about what actions are being considered, if any? The time of thinking and considering is over. We need to get an answer.
We have seen the terrible situation in Iran, where many lives have been lost since the murder of Mahsa Amini in September this year. At the same time, we are seeing incredible courage on display through the thousands upon thousands of Iranians civilians coming out to the streets in a show of support for human rights, especially for women and girls, at great risk to themselves. At least 326 people have died in these nationwide protests, and thousands have been arrested for peaceful protest. Just in recent days, we have seen more shocking reports of violence against civilians coming out of Iran. A nine-year-old boy was shot by security forces when they opened fire on his parents' car: one of 56 children—that we know of—killed by Iranian forces over the past eight weeks.
Many MPs and senators would have joined rallies across Australia in a show of support for these courageous Iranians. We all stand with Iranian Australians and with Iranians at home, who are enduring a terrible situation. Disturbingly, there have been reports of Iranian Australians targeted by threats and intimidation for speaking out against the Iranian regime and for helping people within Iran to communicate. In Ukraine, Iran has transferred unmanned aerial vehicles to Russia, which are now being used to target civilian infrastructure and population in Russia's continuing abhorrent war against Ukraine.
When will the government utilise the mechanisms provided for by the Magnitsky-style sanctions introduced by the coalition government, which passed through parliament with Labor support? At the time of the debate on these important reforms, the now Minister for Foreign Affairs said it was 'regrettable' that the regime wasn't put in place sooner. It's there now. Labor has been in government for six months. It is time to use it. Is the government at least considering action against the leadership of Iran, of the revolutionary guard, similar to those that many other nations have applied? We would deeply appreciate answers to these questions.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (18:28): I'm very glad to make a contribution to the consideration of the budget measures in detail, specifically when it comes to the Albanese Labor government's measures in foreign affairs, trade, tourism and investment. There's just no doubt that Australia's sustainable economic wellbeing, its peace and security, its capacity to be a responsible and influential middle power on the world stage, particularly in our Indo-Pacific region, depends on the highest-quality engagement through all the vectors of foreign engagement—in trade, development assistance, in defence and in diplomacy. But we certainly didn't get that from the previous government in any of those areas, let alone on a concerted and strategic basis. Mercifully, that has now changed.
Within barely a month of the election of the Labor government the Prime Minister had held face-to-face meetings with leaders of some of our most important partners and neighbours, including the US, Japan, India, Indonesia and New Zealand, and in the first six months the foreign minister has renewed contact with some of Australia's closest partners, visiting 21 countries. My good friend and colleague the Minister for International Development and the Pacific has already met with all of his Pacific Islands Forum member counterparts and a number of them more than once. There's no question that that kind of attention and engagement is vital to promoting our national interest. That's why the government and its ministers, including the Minister for Resources here and the minister for trade in the other place, are bringing to bare all the tools of statecraft to pursue and secure those interests, many of which depend on international cooperation and on multilateral forums and agreements.
Climate change is a perfect example. We know the enaction of the recalcitrants of the coalition not only did enormous practical and economic harm to Australia but also harmed our reputation and relationships, especially in the Pacific. From the Leader of the Opposition who once crudely joked about Pacific Islands being subsumed by rising sea levels, we now get equally crude dog whistling about Australia's participation in climate mitigation funding mechanisms for developing countries. Not withstanding the determination of those opposite to always choose the low road, to always choose negative us-and-them politics, we recognise the need for a bipartisan approach to rebuilding Australia's international engagement capacity and influence. That's why we've re-established the programs supporting the bipartisan parliamentary delegation to the Pacific, and I look forward to going to the Pacific with some of those present here tonight. That program was cut by the coalition. I'm going to Fiji, I think, on 11 December, so hopefully some of you will be with me. We recognise the need to be united in showing up and listening and working with our Pacific family. Under the former government we've seen the consequences of a different approach.
In all seriousness, the Albanese Labor government is investing in development assistance and diplomacy in our region and beyond because we know it is the most effective and cost-effective means of promoting inclusive economic growth, ensuring peace and stability. That's why, from 2022-23, we'll provide an additional $900 million over four years to the Pacific to support development and resilience. The government will strengthen our people-to-people links by establishing a new Pacific Engagement Visa, the PEV, providing a pathway for permanent residency for 3,000 nationals each year from Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste. And we'll support civil society and non-government organisations who do such incredible and necessary work on the ground in local communities. We'll provide $32 million to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation under a new Indo-Pacific broadcasting strategy to help foster a diverse, independent and professional regional media sector. And the government will boast our ODA to Southeast Asia by providing an additional $470 million over four years, including—and this will get those opposite going—a new $200 million climate infrastructure partnership with Indonesia. Our focus on the significance of Southeast Asia will be reflected in a new office of Southeast Asia within DFAT. These are just some of the measures that will allow Australia to re-engage, to work collaboratively and to live up to our character as a nation that has no hesitation whatsoever in sharing common challenges with friends, partners and regional allies.
Now, as we emerge from COVID-19, there is an opportunity to refresh and reframe our development assistance programs so we will once again fulfil Australia's historic role as a supportive, responsive, collaborative regional partner and as a middle power looking to have a positive influence in areas like climate, ocean protection, fair and free trade, peace and disarmament. I'll be interested in the minister's views on all of those. (Time expired)
Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (18:33): I know you are and we are! The others on the other side aren't quite as committed to free trade as we are. An interesting stat I was looking at the other day was that global trade has increased from US$6 trillion 20 years ago to US$22 trillion a few years ago. And you know what happened over the same time? Global poverty, as measured, went from 30 per cent of the global population to 10 per cent of the population. So I think they're correlated. We on this side of the House understand the wealth and the prosperity that free trade brings to everybody. That side of the House aren't quite so committed. They sort of want to be, but they can't be. It's reflected—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr HOGAN: I get noise of agreement! It's reflected too in the statistics. We've got 16 bilateral trade agreements, with 13 of them done by this side of the House—13 of the 16! That shows that we are committed and they're not. You might think: why wouldn't they be? When you look at the wealth that trade brings, why are the other side not committed to free trade like we are? It's very easy to understand. It's because we know the unions are back in town. We know, with the industrial relations legislation and everything else, that the unions are back in town. They're running the town. They're in control of the town.
Here's a good quote for you in regard to the free trade agreement that the previous minister negotiated with the UK. The CFMMEU donated millions of bucks, as we know, to the Labor Party. The CFMMEU says, 'Our view is that the proposed agreement should be scrapped.' There you go! The puppet masters of this lot are saying they should be scrapped. The CFMMEU is saying you should scrap the deal. That's why they're not quite as committed as they would like to be. The ACTU, on the trade deal with India and Indonesia, suggested it was written in secret and had no benefits for local working people. That's why that side can't nail free trade agreements; they're not really committed to them.
They've already come out, since they've been in government, with another trade killer. The trade killer—and they've announced this—is Labor's hard-line, never-ever decision on investor-state dispute settlement provisions. Again, this is directed to them from the unions. They're completely against ISDS. They're over there agreeing. Guess what? We have over seven of those as part of our free trade agreements. If we had had them in charge, those deals wouldn't have been done, because the unions are saying, 'You can't do that.' Again, their puppet masters are saying you can't do a deal with an ISDS provision so they won't do the deals. In fact, they've said that they're going to review current FTAs and look at the ISDS provisions. So some of our FTAs are now in trouble because this lot have got in.
The issues with ISDS were articulated in a submission to the JSCOT inquiry into the Peru FTA. Those opposite might want to listen to this. The submission stated:
Opponents of ISDS in Australia's FTAs, such as unions (ACTU) … have failed to articulate a cogent case as to why they oppose it. The ACTU's claim that ISDS 'provides an avenue for foreign corporations to threaten and lodge claims for actual or potential harm resulting from changes in policy and regulation in the country in which they are investing' reflects a basic misunderstanding of how ISDS operates.
There have been 12 incidences of Australian companies bringing claims against other countries as part of these investor-state dispute protections, and it has worked for Australia. In contrast, there's only been one against us, and Australia won the case against a tobacco company. Again, the unions don't like it, so those opposite aren't allowed to like it. I ask the question of the government: when will the government fully implement the ALP policy on ISDS?
To go to tourism: our tourism sector is in trouble. Do you know what their solution to the tourism sector was? The sector is in trouble and we're trying to build our international tourism numbers. Their solution was to cut $35 million from Tourism Australia in the recent budget. My question is: how does the government justify slashing $35 million from Tourism Australia when we're trying to build tourism numbers?
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (18:39): Australians took a big sigh of relief after the election, and now we're all just taking a big sigh of relief after whatever that was. I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Foreign Affairs and Trade consideration in detail. This is a matter on which there has been one of the most significant changes since the election: having a foreign minister that actually wants to be the foreign minister, having a foreign minister that is actually engaged in our region, having a foreign minister who turns up and treats our Pacific neighbours with friendship and attention to detail and who works with them and tries to elevate the voices of our Pacific friends.
We understand that Australia's place and role in the region is the single most important thing we can do in Australia's national interest in a foreign policy sense. We know that working with our Pacific island nations to ensure Australia remains the partner of choice and a friend and partner in the dealings of the Pacific islands is the single biggest thing we can do in Australia's national interest. Compare the proactive way in which we engage with respect to Pacific island nations with some of the absolute gutter politics we have seen from those opposite, trying to play domestic politics with Australia's foreign aid. Some of the questions we have heard in question time! Really they should be asking themselves: is it in Australia's national interest to be playing that sort of domestic politics with Australia's foreign policy and international development money? We do not increase Australia's influence in our region by reducing the amount of investment Australia makes in the region. We do not increase our ability to act in Australia's national interest by playing domestic politics with Australia's foreign aid.
I know that there are many people on the other side of the parliament who care deeply about Australia's standing in our region, who care deeply about our relationship with our friends and who care deeply about Australia's role in the Pacific. The question they should be asking is: is the leadership being provided by the Leader of the Opposition, who is willing to play these low political games with Australia's foreign policy and international development, the best they've got? Is that putting their best foot forward? I'm not exactly sure that that is something all of them would agree with. I hope to see them drop those quite unnecessary and low political acts.
The other thing since the election has been the willingness of the now Albanese Labor government to take the real concerns of Pacific island nations around climate change seriously. I note the Minister for International Development and the Pacific is with us in the chamber, and he has been at forefront of working on, understanding, listening to and caring about the serious and existential concerns of Pacific island nations around climate change. This is not a theoretical exercise; this is something they are living each and every day, and it also affects Australia's place in the world and our ability to have influence and be taken seriously at a multilateral forum. We just had a COP in Egypt where Australia was welcomed back into the fold in a multilateral forum because we understand that climate change is something we need to play a leadership role in. That is something that has changed dramatically. We are no longer making jokes about the impacts of climate change on our friends in the Pacific underneath a boom mike like those opposite did once upon a time. We are listening, elevating and working with the Pacific islands. In fact, work has already commenced to host COP31 together with Pacific island nations to elevate the voices, concerns and needs of our Pacific island friends and family.
It's a very different approach to foreign policy. It's an approach where we take seriously Australia's engagement with our region. We want to increase Australia's ability to have our say and put forward our national interest, but that's also good for our friends in the Pacific islands. That's something I care deeply about. I'm proud to be the chair of the Papua New Guinea-Australia friendship group. I'm looking forward to heading to Papua New Guinea in a couple of weeks and meeting with our friends. I'm very proud of the work being done by the government. I ask the minister: does he agree with the work being done by the government?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (18:44): Before some close analysis and scrutiny of what Labor has committed to in international development in the Pacific, I want to highlight some of the incredible investments the coalition made in this space whilst in power. We were able to increase aid funding to the Pacific, which reached a record high of $1.721 billion in 2020-21. We supported economic growth and connectivity through electrification and undersea cabling initiatives through the $3 billion Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific.
COVID 19 was a remarkably tough time for Australia and, of course, for the wider region and the whole world, but I'm proud that even when we experienced our own problems we didn't turn our back on our neighbours. I recall the then member for Flinders and minister for health going out of his way to ensure that vaccinations went to the Pacific, so that we did what we should do as good neighbours. The government committed an additional $1 billion in aid funding over four years to support the region's pandemic response. That support included sharing more than 40 million COVID vaccine doses with Pacific and South-East Asian countries and the provision of essential medical equipment and training, and laboratory and technical support.
When it came to food security and humanitarian support, in 2021 Australia provided $173.4 million in funding for nutrition and food security, more than $541 million in funding for humanitarian, emergency and refugee programs. In the March 2022-23 budget, the government pledged $145 million for protracted humanitarian crises, including in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and $40 million to the United Nations World Food Programme.
Now let us look ahead and put the Albanese government under the microscope. Firstly, most importantly and most urgently is famine. Fifty million people are on the brink of starvation in 45 countries; 10,000 children are dying every day from hunger. NGOs collectively asked Australia for $150 million. The government committed just $15 million, the same amount it committed to upgrading a sporting complex in the Macedon Ranges in Victoria. I'd like to know what informed the government's decision to provide just 10 per cent of that request. Canada has provided A$287 million to the global hunger crisis. The US has given A$715 million. Australia's $15 million is just two per cent of the United States' contribution. Is that really enough, Minister? Does the government have any intention of increasing its funding?
In 2011 more than a quarter of a million people died in Somalia from the famine. In DFAT's own assessments of the food crisis in the Horn of Africa it recognises that, while the government provided the right amount of funding, it was not released quickly enough. NGOs have been raising the alarm on the current hunger crisis for months, yet it took the government until September to release any funding, which was at best inadequate and at worst insulting. Is the government content with the speed at which we are releasing funding to those in need in the Horn of Africa?
Another disaster that deserves more attention is the Pakistan floods. More than 1,700 people have died, and the Australian government has provided just $5 million towards this. We will see related health issues putting stress on the already crippled health system there. Fixing vital infrastructure will take many, many years. Undoubtedly, we will see a rise in terrorism because of these floods, sadly and unfortunately. Minister: is the government really comfortable with a measly $5 million contribution? The United Kingdom government provided the equivalent of A$26 million. The US has provided A$46½ million. Is Australia pulling its weight?
Even when we're allocating this money, we don't seem to be using the most effective mechanisms. The Australian Humanitarian Partnership is a partnership between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australian NGOs. The AHP ensures that when we do allocate money we deliver the most effective, innovative and collaborative humanitarian assistance available. However, the government is failing to use the AHP. Instead, it has given the funding to UN agencies. I would like to know for 2021-22 and 2022-23 what proportion of humanitarian preparedness and response funding was allocated through the AHP. Why is the government using the UN as a middleman instead of giving the funding directly to the NGOs? Whilst we're on the topic of efficient use of funds, I have some questions about Australia's commitment of $17 million for the Pacific Games. I applaud our support of our dear friends in the Solomons. However, I would like to know what that money will go to specifically. Was there a value for assessments completed?
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (18:49): Well, what a difference the Albanese Labor government is making after just six months, after nine long years under the coalition government. We've heard a lot of talk about the Pacific. The coalition government in the past talked about their Pacific step-up. We called it a Pacific stuff-up because that's what it was. Now all they can do is try and score cheap political points on our national security and our foreign policy. That is what they've reverted to. It's a bit of a disgrace because the issues, the geostrategic challenges that we are facing, are far too important. The strategic global contest in the Indo-Pacific, the centrepiece in many respects of this contest between the rise of authoritarianism and democracy, is too important to play politics with, as the Prime Minister has rightly pointed out.
We are a government that is focused on the geostrategic challenges that we face. It is about our national interest, not playing cheap politics with our national security and foreign policy. In the six short months of this government the Minister for Foreign Affairs; the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, who is here in the chamber; the Prime Minister; and others have gone about resetting relationships in the Pacific, rebuilding trust and renewing commitments across the Pacific and South-East Asian nations on issues that they care about, such as climate change. The foreign minister and our other ministers have used the three Ds of statecraft—nuanced diplomacy; development assistance; and defence, building our defence capability—together in order to achieve our objectives, which I am sure those opposite would have to agree with. I am sure they'll provide bipartisan support.
Our objective is the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific region and the ongoing prosperity that flows from that. We can't disagree about that. But it is also about defending the liberal rules-based order, one that benefits us and nations in the region to ensure security and stability. That is why the nuanced diplomacy that has been practised by our executive, by the ministers who have been doing such a great job across the region, is about improving relationships, reducing tension and making Australia a partner of choice for the countries of the region. That is so important because in the past, frankly, there has been a degree of paternalism, a kind of arrogance towards the Pacific. We have heard all the stories. They are our partners. They are equals. They are sovereign states. They need to be treated with respect, and that is exactly what we are doing.
We've announced $900 million, committed over four years from 2022-23, to increase support for the Pacific and more than $147 million over four years to advance Pacific security and engagement priorities. We have increased development assistance for South-East Asia by $470 million. The member for Riverina mentioned increased overseas development assistance. He is kind of right. The previous government increased it in part of the Pacific, but they also ripped $11 billion dollars over nine years out of the development assistance budget. That is what they did. So you're partly right there, member for Riverina.
In defence we are working to build defence assets that deter adversaries that would seek to diminish the rules based order, whether they be state or non-state actors. We are establishing a Pacific Defence School to train Pacific Island countries' defence and security forces, an important initiative. We're advancing economic partnerships—Indonesia is a prominent example—and building people-to-people links, creating 3,000 engagement visas each year.
Whether it is the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the PM, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister, they've all made a tremendous effort over the past six months to advance our national interest across the Indo-Pacific. They've combined the three Ds in a very effective way to help us stabilise our relationships with major economic partners, including stabilising our relationship with China. We've seen the importance of dialogue occurring for the first time in six years between the leaders of China and Australia.
This is all about making our region more resilient, about allowing Australia to help shape our strategic circumstances to our advantage, to shape a region and a world that have respect for the international rules-based order, human rights, shared security and shared economic strength—as the Prime Minister has called it, the importance of the international rule of law. We are a trading nation. We have to ensure that as many nations as possible—our partners—respect that rules based order, because it benefits us and because it is about the future of our children and grandchildren. What we do now will shape the next 10 to 20 years.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (18:54): To quote Resources Minister King from question time today, one in four Australian jobs is trade related. What this means is that Australia's economic future will be put at risk if the Albanese government doesn't continue to build on Australia's existing trade relationships and international reputation as we face trade challenges in an increasingly volatile world.
Whilst in government, the coalition pursued an ambitious agenda of diversifying our trade markets and opening up new market opportunities. Taking into account the Australia-UK FTA and the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement, which passed through the House this week, the coalition government has negotiated 11 trade agreements since 2013, lifting the share of Australia's trade covered by FTAs from around 25 per cent in 2013 to almost 80 per cent today. But there are still many trade opportunities to be pursued, particularly in the Middle East and Africa.
In February 2021, the former Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Dan Tehan, announced the commencement of the investigation into how best to strengthen trade and investment with Israel, including a potential FTA. Also in 2021, the Gulf Cooperation Council announced renewed interest in pursuing an FTA with Australia. The GCC, comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, is an established market for Australian agriculture produce, including live animals, meat, dairy, vegetables, sugar, wheat and other grains, with trade accounting for $11 billion in 2021. In March 2022, Minister Tehan and his United Arab Emirates counterpart, His Excellency Dr Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, announced that Australia and the UAE would pursue a comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Labor announced a trade diversification policy at the last election, but I note this did not include commitments to any new trade agreements, nor any reference to our valuable Middle Eastern markets. Minister, now you're in government, I would like to ask whether Minister Farrell has progressed any of the aforementioned feasibility studies or negotiations with the Middle East.
Continuing on, I note the Middle East is an important market and friend to Australia. In times of global uncertainty, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the current conflict in the Ukraine, the food security of the Middle East has come under considerable threat. Transport arteries through the Black Sea have been compromised, restricting movements of grain and other products. And the current government remains committed to closing the live sheep export trade, most of which originates from my home state of Western Australia. This policy was announced by a group called the Australian Alliance for Animals during the election campaign. Can you imagine the horror of the farmers and producers and our customers in the Middle East during those days in the campaign when the then spokesman, the member for Franklin, jumped around with a different position from day to day, not having a clue what the actual policy was?
Finally, we have landed with the current minister Watt stating that this phase-out will not occur during this term of government but he remains resolved to phase the industry out. This is at odds with WA Premier Mark McGowan, who believes that animal welfare advances made since the unfortunate Awassi Express incident now provide the transparency and welfare assurances the general public needs. While both Minister Watt and Minister Farrell maintain the live-export ban will not extend to cattle, unfortunately this will happen by default, as most of the cattle exported to the Middle East travel on multidestination live sheep carriers.
Feedback that I've received from Australian exporters and their Middle Eastern destination markets is that closure of this important trade in animal protein could signal a change in our broader trading relationship. I know Agriculture Minister Watt has received correspondence from his Kuwaiti counterpart emphasising the decades-old Kuwait-Australia trade relationship and the scope for expansion of agribusiness, energy sector service and equipment, education, tourism and other services, as well as reiterating that Kuwait is one of our largest Middle Eastern investors in Australia. This letter outlined their cultural preference for fresh meat over frozen or chilled and the greater halal confidence that locally processed meat provided over a product certified by non-Muslim countries. Presuming this concern would be shared by other Middle Eastern live export destination countries, I asked the minister: has the Albanese had any conversations with our Middle Eastern trading partners regarding the broader trade ramifications of the phase out of the live sheep trade to the Middle East?
Mr CONROY (Shortland—Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (19:00): I am indebted to the indulgence of the Deputy Speaker for allowing me five minutes to make a few statements about our budget and respond to some of the questions from my shadow ministerial colleague.
I want to start by saying that I really do appreciate the efforts of the shadow minister and his real attempts to take a bipartisan approach. We're not going to agree on everything, and his job is to hold the government and me to account, and I expect he'll do that. On the question of the $17 million for the Pacific Games in the Solomon Islands, we will be funding the refurbishment of school classrooms that will be used to house athletes during the games. The beauty of that project is that it has a double dividend. It contributes to the success of the Pacific Games but also gives greater education infrastructure to the boys and girls of the Solomon Islands. I think that's really important.
On the question on the AHP, I'm going to take that on notice and come back to you with a detailed answer on the division there. I appreciate his views on humanitarian assistance in the Horn of Africa. Obviously, $10 million of the $15 million allocated will go to the UN World Food Program and $5 million to NGOs. I appreciate that there is a debate about whether the UN is the right body for it. We generally use the UN because we know that they can deliver. They have the expertise and the track record of delivering on food assistance. That $15 million is in addition to our general funding to the UN World Food Program. We've already allocated $63 million to the UN World Food Program this year already, and $157 million went to them last year. That funding goes to where the UN World Food Program says the need is greatest, which includes places like Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Syria and the broader Indo-Pacific. So I urge people not to look at the $15 million in isolation; it is part of a broader program.
On the Pakistan floods, quite frankly, that's why it's informed our position on climate loss and damage in the UN COP discussions. Yes, we need to support the current emerging crisis, and we absolutely are doing that, but we are going to see more of that with climate change, and we need to be prepared to take action on that. That's why I'm disappointed by the attacks in question time on that particular fund. I know it's not a view universally held in the opposition, but, when the Leader of the Opposition continues to use that line of attack, he diminishes himself, he diminishes Australia's ability to promote our interests abroad and, ultimately, weakens our national security.
On the shadow minister's comments about increased aid to the Pacific, I acknowledge that the former government did increase aid to the Pacific. It was at the expense of cuts elsewhere, and that was unfortunate. I also applaud their general increase in temporary and targeted assistance over those years. I do wish that they had the courage to make them permanent, and I think what they did reflected a debate within their party room. Clearly, they went as far as they could. I would have liked to have given them more support so they could go further, and I stand ready to support and make a case for bipartisan increases in foreign aid. It's an essential part of our broader international engagement. Whenever you talk to senior leaders of the ADF and defence, they make the point that our national security isn't just based on our defence policy and defence resourcing; it's based on DFAT, foreign aid, Border Force and a holistic approach to national security.
In the time remaining I want to inform the House about some excellent announcements we made in our budget, including $900 million in additional overseas development assistance to the Pacific. That was part of a $1.4 billion budget increase. This year we will provide $1.9 billion in development assistance to the Pacific. That is the highest level ever. We are introducing the Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership to support climate infrastructure in the Pacific, not just mitigation and adaptation but renewable energy projects. There's the revolutionary Pacific Engagement Visa to grow a diaspora in this country—3,000 permanent migrants every year will be transformational. The one I'm most passionate about is turbocharging the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, a scheme that benefits Australia, a scheme that benefits the workers and benefits the countries those workers are coming from. We will hit 35,000 workers this year and, hopefully, we can do more. There was also the $32 million Indo-Pacific Broadcasting Strategy.
I conclude with the fact that I'm looking forward to travelling with shadow foreign minister Birmingham on the bipartisan parliamentary trip. This is an important initiative that is essential to demonstrate to the Pacific that, no matter who is in power here, they can rely on Australia as their partner of choice.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Agriculture, Fisheries and Fores try Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $95,184,000
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (19:06): It's often said that our farming, fishing and forestry industries are at the forefront of managing and adapting to climate change. Yesterday, in my role as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Producers, I had the great privilege of welcoming to parliament the leaders summit hosted by the National Farmers Federation. In that group of over 100 people was a young farmer, and he told me he'd just recently been appointed to the NFF's youth council. I said to him: 'As a young farmer, what are your main desires and wishes and, seriously, what are the priorities for young farmers?' Without batting an eyelid, the first two things he said to me were: 'Meryl, net zero and innovation.' I was incredibly impressed with his answer.
Then we turned to commentary around the weather, as we often do with the ag sector, and he said: 'These floods and natural disasters are such a devastation for our industry.' Of course, fires—not to mention drought—have also presented great problems. It's like all things: we know that very soon we'll probably be staring down another drought. Even though we're right in the middle of a La Nina at the moment, we know an El Nino will once again rear its head as well.
In my own electorate of Paterson, oyster farms are suffering the effects of QX disease—the Q is for Queensland—which is caused by a parasite. That has been complete devastating. On top of that, we've had local bee farmers wiped out by the Varroa destructor mite, as well as the ongoing challenges of dramatic weather events. That's impacting not just local honey production; in the ag sector it affects pollination, and that will be a real challenge in the Hunter for the next three years and, potentially, the next five.
Over the years, farmers, small businesses and rural operations have had to adapt to all of these changing conditions. On top of that, we have had the biosecurity threat of things like lumpy skin disease and foot and mouth disease hanging over our heads, so the challenges are well and truly there for our ag sector. Tonight I can only say, through the minister representing Minister Murray Watt: what an incredible job the minister has done in his first six months of being the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, having stared down imminent and deadly biosecurity threats, floods and the varroa mite. If these things were to happen once in any ag minister's time, it would be quite incredible. I know the member for Grey has been around the ag sector a long time, and he's nodding in agreement. I think anyone would agree that the minister has done a fine job.
We know that we have to stare down these challenges, and we know that they include not only changing seasons but also a changing climate, the cost of transport, the cost of trying to get labour—the cost of fertiliser alone! But we know that our ag sector is such an innovative group of people, and they know that there needs to be absolute focus on the future. My main question tonight is: can the minister explain why it is important for the government to work with industry to manage these challenges and imminent threats by delivering more sustainable and climate-smart agriculture and why it is important for the government to support the transition to net zero emissions? Also, can the minister provide an update on the commitment in the budget to provide $302.1 million over the next five years through the Natural Heritage Trust to deliver for a sustainable agricultural sector?
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Opposition Whip) (19:10): Minister, I'm sure you're aware of the enormous contribution the farming sector makes to Australia. The sector generates more than $50 billion a year in direct returns and $150 billion in total with the value added if food manufacturing is included. The sector is the backbone of our rural towns, and their ability to survive and prosper is of paramount importance. The income these rural communities generate in turn makes a huge contribution in our cities, where many of the jobs in manufacturing and the supply chain are situated. Of equal importance is the role agricultural landholders play in caring for our environment. They manage the vast majority of Australia's landmass. Essential to their prosperity and success is the security of their supply chains and the control of its costs. A major part of that supply chain challenge is fertiliser, in terms of procurement and import and also in terms of supply at a reasonable price.
Australia has some of the oldest and most degraded soils in the world, and, as such, fertilisers are essential building blocks of good farming practice. Australia imports most of our phosphate and nitrogenous fertiliser. There's no good reason for this. After all, we have all the required raw materials right here in this country, and we should be manufacturing locally. I'm pleased to report that, with the recent establishment of Centrex's Ardmore phosphate mine in north-west Queensland, we are on the way to eliminating the import of around 400,000 tonnes a year of phosphorus fertiliser. However, we use around 2.4 million tonnes of nitrogenous fertilisers a year and import about 90 per cent of that. Nitrogen fertiliser is made from natural gas, and Australia is the world's biggest exporter of gas as LNG. That gas, or an equivalent, is then turned into nitrogen fertiliser in another country, and we transport it back to Australia and distribute it for use. Clearly, we should be able to do so much better, especially when we consider how much anxiety the shortage of AdBlue caused 12 months ago. The product is made from urea, and the shortage of AdBlue came about because of an international shortage of urea.
Just in case anyone might think that we could reduce our reliance on fertiliser or that somehow we could cope with a major interruption of supply, we should consider Sri Lanka. In April 2022, in an incredibly misguided attempt to somehow save the environment, they decided to ban chemical based fertiliser. The result was a 35 per cent drop in rice yields and a 50 per cent drop for tea and corn, leading to widespread shortages and an explosion in prices. The policy-induced shortages led Sri Lanka to rely on credits with other nations to feed their citizens. The decision delivered bankruptcy to a poor nation, and, despite its cancellation 12 months later, their farmers, as a result of their losses, have been largely unable to purchase fertiliser for the new crop. It's a man-made disaster. Naturally, Australia's not likely to ban the use of fertiliser, but it does highlight the potential for damage from an interrupted supply, and, given the current tensions of the world and rapidly changing market conditions, who is to say that's not on the cards?
That's why we should develop local capacity. I'm sure the minister is aware that the coalition government provided support for two projects in WA to deliver local urea manufacturing capacity: a $220 million low-interest loan for Perdaman to build their facility on the Burrup Peninsula plus a $255 million low-interest loan to the WA government for an upgrade of port infrastructure. The former government also provided a $2 million grant from the Modern Manufacturing Strategy for Strike Energy to develop a urea plant in the south of the state.
The Perdaman proposal has already attracted a significant amount of criticism. The minister for the environment recently blocked a submission to halt the progress of construction due to concerns relating to Aboriginal arts. Recently, the federal parliament passed bills enshrining a 43 per cent emissions target in legislation. Unlike a general target, which Australian governments have previously set and met, a legislated target has now provided an avenue for third parties to seek judicial intervention to determine whether or not a project should go ahead.
My question to the minister is: can she guarantee that the legislated 43 per cent target will not be used by activist groups to delay or derail these projects, which are so important to Australian farmers and our national security? (Time expired)
Mr BURNELL (Spence) (19:15): The recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease helped bring the importance of strong biosecurity standards and controls to the fore. The agricultural sector, through our livestock, crops and unique natural environment, contributes to a $70 billion export industry. One wrong move, one lapse of judgement, and we could see that all come crashing down, one sector at a time, which would be devastating for so many.
It's not just foot-and-mouth disease that has threatened our industry this year but also lumpy skin disease. This heightened vigilance isn't just a state of mind the federal government is required to be in; it's also one for our state governments and agriculture companies. We can all do our bit to prevent outbreaks from occurring.
I remember a few months ago in my home state when our Royal Adelaide Show required showgoers to avoid touching or feeding livestock without express permission and to not enter animal pavilions if they had been overseas in the past seven days. Even simpler commonsense measures also existed, such as attending with clean shoes and clothes. That's good advice no matter what the circumstances are, but even that can help keep our livestock safe from harm.
Australia's biosecurity system is a strong one, but it has to constantly adapt to new and sometimes unforeseen threats from abroad in order to ensure it will protect the industry and the way of life for the many regional townships that rely on this industry to continue to be on the map. On budget night, I was pleased to see the Treasurer hand down his first budget, which I hope will be his first of many. It is a budget that delivers for agriculture and for keeping the industry safe. This budget includes a substantial level of new and targeted funding for biosecurity. Amongst other reasons, this helps me feel confident that the minister appreciates the importance of strong biosecurity for the regions, including the hundreds of thousands of jobs that the agricultural sector supports.
On the advent of the budget, I have seen many from the other side of the chamber say that the Albanese Labor government does not care about the regions or about agriculture. Their reasoning is because the budget has rolled back their pork-barrelling. I know I'd rather save the pork industry instead, and I'm sure a lot of people out in the regions would too.
In fact, I had the pleasure of joining the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Senator Grogan to visit some locations a little further up my electorate of Spence's northern border, just past Angaston. We visited Keyneton Station sheep farm and discussed enhancing our livestock traceability as an important part amongst a suite of measures we must take to maintain that air of vigilance needed to preserve an industry of such importance to us both for Australia's exports and domestically for our food security.
The government's work alongside industry and state and territory governments to implement an enhanced EID, or electronic identification system, for sheep and goats in each jurisdiction by 1 January 2025 is going to go a long way to ensuring swift action can be taken to curtail any potential disease outbreaks in our livestock. A $46.7 million co-investment was provided in the budget towards this end because all stakeholders should work collaboratively together and feel invested in an industry that provides us with so much.
This government knows that moving towards EID with sheep and goats will exceed national livestock traceability standards, with a 99.64 per cent accuracy, meaning that, in the terrible event that a disease makes its way through, we will recover significantly faster. The minister also outlined on the day the need for a comprehensive and collaborative national agriculture traceability strategy. This is a strategy that will add value to our agriculture exports down the line. When buyers of our livestock know we keep a clean house it adds value, bringing more value to the farm.
My questions for the minister are: can the minister outline measures in the budget that will go towards strengthening Australia's biosecurity, particularly given the emergence of foot-and-mouth disease in our region; and can the minister also provide an update on the government's election commitment to deliver long-term sustainable funding for biosecurity and why this is important for regional Australia?
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (19:20): I rise to speak about Labor's October budget and what it means for agriculture. I wish to provide practical examples of how this budget is nothing more than an attack on our agricultural industry.
Harvest is in full swing in my electorate of Flynn, including on my own property at Taroom. There is no doubt that agriculture is feeding this nation. Food security must be front and centre as we travel towards the future. Minister, how does this Labor government plan not only to feed Australia but to help feed the world, as the Prime Minister has stated?
Diesel power is critical for agriculture, and people who thinks it will be replaced by alternative energy sources in the near future—people just like Chris Bowen, the 'minister for industry, energy and emissions reduction'—are delusional. Labor's budget has committed to increasing heavy vehicle road user charges from the rate of 26.4 cents per litre to 27.2 cents per litre. This means truck drivers will be slugged an extra 0.8 cents tax for every litre of diesel that they use. This will ultimately mean farmers will have to pay more to produce and get their product to market, and consumers will pay more to buy this product at the supermarket. Labor's agenda is to treat regional Australia like a cash cow, and it's an absolute disgrace. Minister, why has the heavy vehicle road user charge increased when we are already seeing record diesel prices?
Whilst they have increased the heavy vehicle road user charge, the $14.5 billion Inland Rail is in doubt, with Labor reviewing this much needed project. Re-examining the route has the potential to ignite community angst about the Inland Rail project, increasing unnecessary uncertainty. The coalition government announced that it had agreed in principle to the extension of the Inland Rail to the port of Gladstone, and committed to a $10 million business case to work with the Queensland government to examine the viability of extending this railway line. Minister, will the Inland Rail be extended to the port of Gladstone?
Gas is required for the production of fertiliser, and supply must be maintained. Water and associated infrastructure needs to be expanded to maintain agricultural production. Labor's own budget forecasts gas prices skyrocketing by 40 per cent in the next two years, yet they have provided no serious policy or investment to alleviate the surge in gas prices. This will directly affect the price of fertiliser, adding extra costs to farm production. The surest way to secure affordable, reliable gas is through increasing supply. Funding for gas exploration has been cut. Labor has gutted $31 million from the exploration of the Cooper and Adavale basins gas plan and $23 million from the Beetaloo by discounting the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program. Minister, why does the Labor government not support further gas exploration?
The budget also scraps $4.6 billion from water projects by not proceeding with the Hells Gates dam project in Queensland. Deferring funding of $899.5 million over four years from the Dungowan dam and pipeline, Emu Swamp dam and pipeline, Hughenden irrigation scheme and the Wyangala Dam wall-raising project and making cuts to water programs are devastating and will impact severely on regional areas. The development of water assets is critical to the future of agriculture and industry in Australia, but this budget does not address this. Minister, why has this funding been cut?
Agricultural land needs to be protected by legislation to counter the onslaught of wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines in our pursuit of the renewable energy sector. Reducing emissions by 43 per cent will require the installation of 40 seven-megawatt wind turbines every month from now to 2030. It will require more than 22,000 five-hundred-watt solar panels to be installed every day for the next eight years—2.4 for every man, woman and child. Minister, how much land, including prime agricultural land, will be needed to reach this target?
I've learnt the Labor government has signed up to the methane emissions pledge. This is another broken election promise from Chris Bowen, following his backflip on vehicle emissions standards. What activists want is the end of the beef industry. Labor MPs such as Ged Kearney have endorsed calls to reduce meat consumption and move Australians to plant-based diets. (Time expired)
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (19:26): The forestry industry has long been an important contributor to jobs and economic development in regional Australia. In my electorate of Lyons forestry is a keystone industry that provides stable employment harvesting a renewable resource. I've got a big speech here, but I see the minister wants to sum up. I just want to say that Labor supports our forestry industry absolutely 100 per cent. It's a big contributor in my electorate. As I have always said, the future is better with forestry in it. It's a renewable natural resource, and we can't do better than support a sustainable ongoing forestry industry in Tasmania and in Australia. Can the minister outline how new investments in the budget demonstrate the government's commitment to a strong and sustainable forestry industry in Australia?
Mr McCO RMACK (Riverina) (19:27): Since coming into office, Labor has made a number of questionable decisions when it comes to agriculture. That said, I do appreciate the assistance given to local government areas by the agriculture minister, who doubles as the emergency services minister. When I contacted his office today about the local government area of Cowra, in my seat of Riverina, as well as one in the electorate of the member for Parkes, that being Lachlan, and one in the electorate of the member for Farrer, that being Carrathool, he promised money for the first two and that he would seriously look at Carrathool. I'm sure that, given the need for assistance because of flooding, that will eventuate. I appreciate that he has been to those flood affected areas, because one of the worst hit areas has been agriculture. Many of the crops have been wiped out, which is devastating for those farmers.
I'm also pleased that the minister for infrastructure is in the chamber because I had a good meeting with her earlier this evening in relation to roads. I appreciate the fact that the government is going to address this as far as emergency funding is concerned. I've been calling for this for some time. Whether it is through the funding streams already there or whether the government looks further at it in the budget context next May, the minister has given me assurances that she understands. She is from a regional electorate, from Ballarat in Victoria, and she knows as well as any regional member does—I appreciate that the member for Leichhardt is here—that our roads are very important to us. The weather events in recent weeks and months have made the roads not just atrocious but dangerous. I thank the government for what it is doing in this area to address that.
That said, there are a number of questions that I would put to the minister. Workforce shortages are a huge thing, and the agriculture visa, of course, is very important particularly to the National Party members but to all the regional members of the coalition. The agriculture sector throughout Australia is facing chronic workforce shortages. Indeed, I contacted Kim Houghton from the Regional Australia Institute earlier this week. He told me that there are 93,000 vacancies in regional Australia at the moment. But according to the National Food Supply Chain Alliance, Australia is 172,000 workers short from paddock to plate. They are huge numbers.
There are plenty of vacancies in Australia, and that's why, in government, the federal coalition introduced a major reform—the dedicated ag visa—to bring in the next generation of migrant workers to help build regional Australia. Given the severe shortages in the ag sector in workforce, the government's decision to stop the dedicated ag visa and replace it instead with the PALM scheme is disgraceful. This move makes it so much harder for farmers to find workers. Just 10,800 workers have come to Australia through the PALM scheme since June, and our farmers cannot get the workers they need and are only planting or producing at 60 per cent capacity. You add the level of floods to that, and it makes it just that much more worse. My question is: as part of the memorandum of understanding with Vietnam, when will the implementation details be finalised, Minister? When are the first workers from Vietnam expected to arrive in Australia to help our farmers? It's a serious question, and the opposition would really like an answer to that to help agriculture.
In the time remaining, and whilst I've got the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in the chamber—I appreciate that she's doubling as the representative for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the House of Representatives—I would also like to ask what her vision is for water infrastructure, particularly Wyangala Dam. Raising it by 10 metres to 95 metres adds 650 gigalitres of capacity to the Central West area of New South Wales. It's good for agriculture primarily and brilliant for flood mitigation. Forbes has been flooded, if you count the four peaks this year, eight times in the past 12 years. Before that it was, on average, every seven years since 1887. They are resilient people, Minister, but they are very tired. They are getting weary of sandbagging. You know that, I know that, everybody in the Central West knows that. We haven't got a commitment from state Labor. Will you make that commitment, as part of federal Labor, to invest in that vital piece of water infrastructure?
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) (19:32): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to go a little over time today. Can I start by thanking the members who contributed to the debate today. There are a couple of questions that have been raised which are outside the agriculture portfolio but also outside the infrastructure portfolio. The member who's just spoken may not be aware, but, under the administrative orders, water infrastructure has been transferred over to the Environment and Water portfolio. Opportunities in terms of being able to make sure we have a coherent national water policy and in terms of the national water grid would be matters that you'd raise with Minister Plibersek. But there are opportunities in the opening up of that to look at the surety of town water supplies. I am sure you'll raise that there.
I would also say, if you want to compare the agricultural visa, zero people came under that. As I understand it from the department, some 31,000 people have come under the PALM visa, so I'm pretty happy that we can stand on our record in terms of getting agricultural workers into our regions under PALM and actually making sure they're assisting out there. The ag visa, frankly, just did not work. It didn't work, and so we had to change it, and in changing it we've actually brought more people in than the number the previous government did, which was zero.
The member for Flynn raised a whole raft of issues, but I do want particularly to take him up on the heavy vehicle road user charges. He may not be aware, but that decision that states and territories made to raise the road user charge actually happened in April this year. We actually weren't in power at that point in time. It's a very small increase in the road user charge that is focused in particular on trying to make sure that we keep money flowing to look at the damage that is done by the substantial amounts of heavy vehicles, particularly on our country and rural roads. They're increasingly using much smaller roads than they were before, and the vehicles are bigger. We're seeing triple trailers using small country roads in some instances across the country. The road user charge helps us with the damage that is done to country roads. But I would point out to the member really clearly that that actually happened under the previous government while they were in caretaker mode. We actually weren't in government when the decision was taken. In relation to issues around Adblue, I'm really proud to say that Minister Bowen has been doing some terrific work in making sure that we've got surety of supply. We learned the lesson from the previous government. We don't want to be caught short at all In terms of environmental approvals for projects, the normal processes apply in terms of both state and territory governments, as they do through the EPBC Act under this government.
It has been really important in this budget to focus on the sharp end with biosecurity, because we know that, if we fail, when it comes to agriculture, it would be completely and utterly disastrous for the industry. What that has allowed us to do, through some tough decisions in the budget, is add an additional billion dollars, focused on biosecurity. With foot-and-mouth disease, lumpy skin disease and a range of other diseases that we know are in our region, or could be in our region, we know we cannot afford to be complacent. Increasing biosecurity was something those opposite talked about but they didn't do enough to make sure that we filled those critical gaps. As the member for Spence, who raised this issue in particular, has said, we cannot say strongly enough just how important it is to invest money through the budget in biosecurity. Injecting $134.1 million into the system ensures that we can continue to keep Australia safe. This investment is a down payment on our election commitment to deliver sustainable biosecurity funding so that we can respond to increasing threats. I think everyone in the agricultural sector would agree that, if we fail at that, it's all over. That is actually the most important thing that we can do in terms of agriculture.
We've, of course, invested money in national livestock traceability. The member for Spence, who visited a sheep farm just recently in his electorate, noted that we've included $46.7 million towards that livestock contact tracing, which, in the event of a disease outbreak, will be critical. Also, as the member for Paterson raised, we're investing $302 million in sustainable climate-smart agriculture. Our farmers are crying out for that. They are probably at the forefront of this fight, and they know more about the climate than anyone else in this country so I'm proud that we're contributing, through this budget, to putting money into that area as well.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Ordered that consideration in detail of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:38