I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1)notes that:
(a)Australia's dairy farmers are caught in a long-running cost-price squeeze, where they are paid less than the cost of producing their milk; and
(b)Government intervention is needed to save our dairy sector and our dairy farmers; and
(2)therefore, calls on the Government to task the ACCC with testing the efficacy of a minimum farm gate milk price and to make recommendations on the best design options.
Leave not granted.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my left are preventing the member for Hunter receiving the call.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Hunter from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1)notes that:
(a)Australia's dairy farmers are caught in a long-running cost-price squeeze, where they are paid less than the cost of producing their milk; and
(b)Government intervention is needed to save our dairy sector and our dairy farmers; and
(2)therefore, calls on the Government to task the ACCC with testing the efficacy of a minimum farm gate milk price and to make recommendations on the best design options.
This is not just a motion about dairy farmers, as important as our dairy farmers are and as much as they are struggling. This is a motion about a broken dairy industry. The fact is that our farmers aren't making money. In fact, most are losing money. The fact is that our processors aren't securing good returns either. The greatly ironic part of the market is that our retailers are not making money either, but, in their case, because they choose not to. I've been watching this market very, very intensely for a five-year period now. I've watched more farmers leave the land, I've seen more farmers culling their cattle and I've seen more farmers in tears.
Just today, Dairy Australia produced its latest outlook for the industry, and the news is all bad. There are a couple of glimpses of hope in some dairy regions in the country, and we welcome that. But production is down year on year and is predicted to fall further in the future.
Government members interjecting—
Not too many people, including those interjecting, would know this—few members of this House would know this, and I wouldn't expect them to know it—but we are very close now in this country to being a net importer of dairy products. Think about that. Australia is on the edge of being a net importer of dairy products. If we are not careful—and I don't make this comment lightly; it's not my style to overreach—but we are facing a situation now where our drinking milk and the milk we put on our Wheaties will be imported powdered milk. This is now coming close to being a national emergency.
Unlike the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—and I welcome the fact that he has joined us—I'm not into criticising and attacking the retailers. I'm not into criticising and attacking the processors. We can only have a strong value chain and an efficient market if everyone is productive and everyone is making some money. And the farmers should be amongst those who can make some money, because if they don't start making some money there won't be any dairy farmers.
Twenty-three years I've been here, and I said to the member for Jagajaga last week, who's also been here 23 years, 'We've seen at least three things here in this place this week that we've never seen before.' I saw another one yesterday: a cabinet minister calling for a consumer boycott of two major retailers in this country. Where does this end? What boycott, Minister, will it be next week? But here's what really hurts. The majority of farmers don't provide their milk to Woolworths; many more than those who supply Woolworths provide milk to Coles and ALDI. So the minister has called for a boycott of farmers who provide milk to Coles and ALDI. Of course, he hasn't thought about all those others who supply Coles and ALDI, and of course he hasn't thought about all those who work at Coles and ALDI. But the piece de resistance was that we found out the minister had shares in Woolworths!
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
Minister, guess what? We don't care how many you hold. You can sit there all day and argue you don't hold many, but you have a direct pecuniary interest in the war you launched on Coles and ALDI yesterday.
This government has been governing this country, or trying to govern this country, unsuccessfully, for five years now. The drought that farmers are facing, which is compounding the cost price squeeze, is becoming very, very serious for dairy farmers. What have the government done in five years? Have they had a plan to help farmers adapt to a changing climate? No. Have they had a plan to lift farmgate prices for farmers? No. Do they have a future for the industry? No. Have they brought the processors, retailers and farmers together to see how we can lift productivity and profitability across the value chain? No. Nothing. They talk the talk but they never walk the walk.
For at least the last four years we've supported a mandatory code of conduct for the dairy industry. Now, I can be a bit of an economic rationalist. I was of the view for a number of years that the dairy industry would fix itself. The dairy industry would fix itself, the market would play, the small and less efficient would exit the market, and the vacuum would be filled by bigger and efficient players. I was wrong. It's not happening. It's a simple fact: it is not happening. The bigger and efficient players can't make money either, because they just don't have sufficient market power. So I used to think, 'A mandatory code of conduct would fix this. 'We will manage the behaviour of those in the sector and help the dairy farmers.' The government opposed it. They opposed it. Here, in their fifth year of government, they now support it. In the absence of any other idea, they now support the mandatory code of conduct. And guess what? When do you think they're going to introduce the mandatory code of conduct? On 1 July 2020.
About a year ago, to buy Pauline Hanson's vote in the Senate for their tax cuts, they introduced a mandatory code for the sugar industry. How long do you think it took them to develop, introduce and legislate that mandatory code? Less than 24 hours—overnight. Overnight, for Pauline Hanson's vote, they developed a mandatory code for the sugar industry. But the dairy farmers have to wait till 1 July 2020.
We should not be surprised. The government are playing to the crowd all the time. They love the dairy farmers! They're the salt of the earth! They never mention they're also often their pre-selectors. But they never do anything for them. And, out of ideas on drought, they have a drought summit, a talkfest! And, of course, they appointed a drought envoy.
Ms Burney interjecting—
I thank the member for Barton—where is the drought envoy? They're asking the same thing down at the Menindee Lakes. They're asking the same thing in every drought affected area in the country. The media asks where the drought envoy has been. He's been on 23 trips, I think it was, or something, last month. But then they said: 'But where were they?' Do you know where they were? They were all in the drought envoy's electorate, because the drought envoy knows he's in trouble, so no-one else sees him. He spends all of his time talking about drought, but only in his own electorate.
Now I need to say this. The day after the drought envoy left the role of agriculture minister, I said in this place, 'Well, the member for New England's gone, and today we begin cleaning up the mess.' I was encouraged by the arrival of the current minister. I thought he was different from the member for New England. He seemed more sensible. He seemed less populist. He was certainly more interested in having discussions with me about policy issues in the sector, even on live sheep. He came to the party, commissioned some inquiries and talked about tougher regulation, and I was really encouraged by all of that. But, you know, with the National Party, in the end it's all politics; it's all the base; it's all about holding onto the seats. They only need four per cent to become half of the government, where they just bully and get the most ridiculous decisions out of prime ministers. Whether it be Prime Minister Abbott, Prime Minister Turnbull or, now, Prime Minister Morrison, the stupid ideas—the APVMA relocations, the regional investment corporations—that do nothing other than destroy the sector just keep coming forward.
So, Minister, I'm sorry, but you've been a great disappointment. You've just reverted to type. You are as much a National Party agriculture minister as all those that went before you over many, many decades. You are not interested in the farmers. You are not interested in policy. You are not interested in helping them lift their productivity and sustainable profitability. You are just interested in one thing: you've got your eye on the leadership, and the only way you'll get there is to keep these Neanderthals up on the crossbench happy. And, of course, in that context, the farmers come second every time.
Is the motion seconded?
The motion is seconded, Mr Speaker. Standing orders should be suspended so that we can debate this motion. In a normal parliament, it would be the National Party that would be moving a motion like this today. In a normal parliament, it would be the National Party that would be standing here moving a motion like this. But the fact of the matter is that it falls to Labor to do the work for the dairy farmers of Australia because the National Party are uninterested, incapable and unable to do it. It should be the Country Liberal Party members who are moving this motion today, but they've gone missing. They're not even in the chamber focusing on this issue. So it falls to Labor to do the job of a divided and incompetent government, and that is what we are dealing with.
The dairy industry is in crisis.
Socialist, populist crap!
The minister!
The minister over there says it's crap. The minister should visit the south coast of New South Wales
The member for Whitlam will resume his seat. The minister will come to the despatch box and withdraw. You will come to the despatch box and withdraw.
I withdraw.
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The member for Whitlam has the call. As usual, the member for Eden-Monaro is not helping.
This is no small issue. I encourage the ministers to visit the south coast of New South Wales, where the dairy industry is in crisis. From Albion Park in my electorate and Jamberoo all the way through to Batemans Bay—and I see the member for Eden-Monaro here—and the Victorian border, dairy farmers are crying out for help. Thousands and thousands of cattle are being sold. The thousands of workers who work on dairy farms face the very real prospect of losing their jobs. Farmers who have been on their properties for generations are thinking very seriously about walking through the gates and handing in the keys. This is no small matter. It should be the National Party or the Liberal Party which is bringing to this parliament the issues, the policies and the solutions to this, but they are bereft of ideas.
The member for Hunter has pointed out that the ACCC recommended, 12 months ago, a mandatory code of conduct for the dairy industry. Anybody who's been in this place a long time would know that the ACCC is very slow to recommend such an instrument. Those opposite have had over 12 months to act on this, but still there is no action—still no action. The Liberal and National parties are unable to answer the problems of the dairy farmers of the South Coast of New South Wales and right around the country, but Labor will step up to the plate. We see the sense of putting in place a mandatory floor price for milk. I've heard members on that side of the House give great speeches in the parliament saying this is exactly what's needed, but they are unable to convince their own minister and they're unable to convince the Liberal Party. They're so divided amongst themselves they're unable to get agreement and legislation on this. But Labor will do it. Labor will ensure that we have a mandatory code of conduct.
Those opposite can rush on some issues. We saw the Prime Minister rush to Cooktown to provide $6 million to re-enact a voyage that never happened. Well, how about a rush on this issue? How about a rush to put in place a mandatory code of conduct and to ensure that we have a minimum floor price on dairy and on milk?
You don't even know where your seat is. Jamberoo is in Gilmore.
I hear the member for Gilmore interjecting. That's very courageous. The member for Gilmore won't even back her own candidate when it comes to her successor. They are so divided in Gilmore, so busy fighting amongst themselves—the Liberal Party fighting against the National Party; the former Liberal Party candidate fighting against the current Liberal Party candidate—that they are not fighting for the dairy farmers of the South Coast. If the member for Gilmore really cared about dairy farmers, she'd cross the floor.
Opposition members interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
Members on both sides!
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
You had the opportunity. I hope you get the call. I hope you speak in favour of the dairy farmers on the South Coast, because you've done precious little for them over the last five years.
I'd just remind members on both sides: I suspect there's a vote coming on, and standing order 94(a) applies all day. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to. I call the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
After 14 long months, we hear the voice of the Labor opposition agriculture spokesman. Never have I been asked, in question time, a question from the member for Hunter. Being the Labor spokesman for agriculture is a bit like being a labrador on the family farm: you're all cute and cuddly but you really have no purpose.
You don't take agriculture seriously. You know very well that you walked in here to try to politicise something because you've been left behind, you've been left at the gate. You know full well that we've already taken the steps to start a mandatory code of conduct. In fact, when the ACCC report that you're talking about came back, on 30 April, I consulted ADF. I understand you consulted ADF yesterday but didn't tell them about this little stunt, which is a bit of a shock to them, as I understand it. When I met with ADF, I said, 'I want the industry to tell me whether it wants a mandatory code.' The ACCC report came back on 30 April. They kept going and going and going, and it got to August. It got to the point where it had taken too long. I called ADF in and said, 'You've got two weeks to give me the direction as to whether you want a mandatory code, or we're going to have to make one for you.' To their credit, they stood up. They engaged with their membership and they came back to me two weeks later and asked for a mandatory code. So we have started that process and we are now at the end of the consultation.
This is about not rushing into it, with unintended consequences. We want to make sure we get this right. What the member for Hunter doesn't understand, which he should be embarrassed by, is that the reason it has to push out into 2020 is that we have to fall into line with current contract and production cycles. This is the danger of having somebody that doesn't understand the intricacies of production systems as the shadow agricultural spokesman. This is the danger of having someone that wants to grandstand rather than look after the farmers of regional and rural Australia as the shadow agricultural spokesman.
The dairy industry is doing it tough. In fact, in my own electorate, I've gone from having over 35 dairy farmers down to 15, and that's the result of the actions of our supermarkets. They've put in place a cap on the price of milk. They've made sure that the ceiling has been put at $1 a litre. I've called them out on that, and I'm proud to say that I've called them out on that. Every corporate citizen has a responsibility to have a sustainable industry that supports them and underlines their supply. That's why I've called them out. If the member for Hunter is upset by that, I'm sorry, but he's out of touch. He might have been here for 23 years. I grant you, I've only been here for 2½ years, but I think I'm a little bit more in touch with real people because I haven't been tainted by this place for 23 years.
Nonetheless, it's important that we get results, so we're acting on the mandatory code. The member for Hunter talked about the ACCC report, saying that we need to put in place a floor price. Let me give the member for Hunter a lesson on what the ACCC report came back with. It did not say anything about a floor price. The ACCC has never asked for a floor price on dairy. To come in here and say, 'Let's go and engage the ACCC to go back on a review they've already undertaken,' shows that their proposed motion has no substance. It is just about the last gasping days of the member for Hunter trying to get some attention. And, I've got to say, this is the first time I've seen a crowd behind him come to hear him talk.
It's important to make sure we get the mandatory code of conduct done and that we run it in a sustainable way—by putting in place a regulatory impact statement to ensure there are no unintended consequences. What the member for Hunter also needs to understand is that the dairy industry is a very geographically specific industry. You've got to understand that the industry in Victoria is different to that in New South Wales and Queensland and WA and South Australia. So we need to make sure that we do this in a sensible way.
You've still got five minutes!
An opposition member interjecting—
If you want to extend, I'm happy to keep going. The reality is that this is what due process should look like—that is, making sure that there aren't any undue impacts on the industry right across it. That's what we've done. We've been calm and sensible and decisive. We've let industry tell us what they want. They came back and told us. It took them time, but we got them there. That's what good governments should do.
An opposition member interjecting—
Well, you're not listening. The reality is we're also supporting our farmers. When they talk about the returns that our farmers are getting, let me tell you: we've taken an agriculture industry from $30 billion to $60 billion in the last eight years. You know how we did that? It's the trade agreements that we put in place. We took off the tinfoil hat that those opposite are wearing. Every time we put a trade agreement up, those opposite tried to slaughter it. Trade agreements are good for this country. We are a nation of 25 million people but we produce enough food for 75 million people. If we don't engage the world, if we don't embrace the world in free trade, then we won't have regional and rural communities—communities that I live in, people that I represent, people that I see every day. The opportunities that the free trade agreements provide are putting money back into their pockets and back into the pockets of our regional communities. These are the sorts of actions that we put in place with the trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China and with the TPP-11, of which those opposite said, 'No, don't bother about it; it's never going to be done.' Lo and behold, we've done it.
Now we've also made an even greater investment in trade. In the last budget, we delivered an extra $51 million to create an additional six agricultural councillor positions to complement the 16 that are already in place, to make sure we get market access for all those commodities, particularly for dairy. We're making sure we get market access commodity by commodity. We're breaking it down and putting in place those people that can have that government-to-government relationship we need to ensure that we get access and take advantage of the trade agreements that we've put in place.
The member for Hunter talks about climate change. Well, let me say that every year this government has invested over $300 million into research and development around giving our farmers the tools, the science and the technology to be able to adapt to a changing climate. We've done it. The climate has been changing since we first put a till in the soil. As primary producers, we continue to adapt and we're adapting better than anyone else. Those investments have made sure that we have, as primary producers, the tools we need to make returns. I'm proud to say that, for the first time, as the national agriculture minister, at the last ministerial council I brought together all the states to have a coordinated approach so that all our research and development—the research and development the states are doing and that we're doing—is coordinated to make sure that we get better bang for buck.
The member for Hunter wants to cherry-pick on points but really hasn't gone into the substance. If he wants to become the agriculture minister, he needs to understand these, because there is a responsibility to those regional and rural Australians, those people, those primary producers out there, particularly those dairy farmers that have done it tough and that we've seen hurt. We've seen the significant reduction from around 8½ thousand to 6,000. We had to act and we did. We acted with industry and we will continue to act. There are other pieces of legislation that we will continue to work through to make sure. And we talked to the dairy farmers.
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
I'll take the interjection. I can't remember the last time you'd seen a dairy farmer. The reality is this: we have been calm and decisive about making sure that we put in an environmental framework. To try to undertake a political stunt where you're going to engage with the ACCC, who have just completed a report that effectively says nothing about supporting this fanciful idea that the member for Hunter has put up, will not work. They understand it's nothing more than a stunt. There's no substance, and it's actually cruel. It's actually a cruel hoax to the dairy farmers of this country. It's a cruel hoax to try to politicise the issues that they've had.
This is about leadership, not politics. And, while the member for Hunter has said that he's disappointed in my performance, I can say that I'm proud of the fact that I have reached across the aisle. For the first time in this nation's history, we have an agreement on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the biggest environmental plan in this nation's history. It is—since Federation. And you know what? It only happened, Member for Hunter—you might want to learn this—because I reached out across the aisle to the member for Watson, and he helped. We worked together. Do not politicise people's plights for your own political gain.
This government will continue on a journey of putting a strong environment around our farmers to ensure they make the best returns. It doesn't happen overnight. It has to be done properly with due process; otherwise, you'll end up with a mess that we've had to fix over the last six years from Labor. (Time expired)
The question is that the motion moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring the safety and protection of the Australian community.
We have passed 17 tranches of legislation since 2014 when the terrorism threat level was raised. These laws have covered matters such as the continued detention of high-risk terrorists and strengthening control orders to minimise the threat to the public.
The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 continues this important work of protecting our community. It will ensure that there is a presumption against bail and parole for all terrorists and their sympathisers. It will also make two changes to improve the operation of the continuing detention order scheme for high-risk terrorist offenders. Schedule 1—Restrictions on bail and parole
Introducing new restrictions on the existing arrangements for bail and parole ensures that there will be a presumption against bail and parole for persons who have demonstrated support for, or have links to, terrorist activity, which is consistent with the agreement reached by the Council of Australian Governments in 2017.
Following the appalling terrorist attack in Brighton, Victoria, we now know that the perpetrator of that attack was on parole and had previously been charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack.
In line with the COAG agreement, this bill expands the Commonwealth's existing presumption to include those offenders who are the subject of a control order, or who have links with, or who have shown support for, terrorist activities. The new presumption against parole similarly covers all of these terrorism related offenders.
This means that offenders who have links with, or have shown support for, terrorist activities will not be released on bail or parole unless they can positively show that there are exceptional circumstances that would otherwise justify their release into the community.
Given the overriding need to protect the community, the presumptions against bail and parole will apply to terrorism related offenders who are under the age of 18. This is consistent with the existing presumption against bail which already applies to children charged with, or convicted of, a terrorism offence. However, whilst decision-makers already take into account the age of the offender when making decisions about bail and parole, this bill will make it an explicit requirement, with the protection of the community continuing to be the paramount consideration.
This bill also amends section 19AG of the Crimes Act, which requires the court to fix a non-parole period of at least three-quarters of the sentence imposed for a terrorism offence. This applies to adults as well as children.
While this bill retains the existing application of section 19AG to children, this will be in the form of a presumption rather than a mandatory requirement that will apply unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify a lower non-parole period.
When considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court must have regard to the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, with the protection of the community as the paramount consideration. This is aligned with the drafting formulation currently provided for in Commonwealth legislation underpinning control orders.
The revisions in the bill to section 19AG reflect the need to remain firm in the face of the serious threat posed by terrorist offenders whilst ensuring that the circumstances of children who commit terrorist offences are taken into account when fixing the minimum period that they are required to spend in jail for their crimes.
Schedule 2 —Amendments relating to continuing detention orders
Schedule 2 contains two measures to improve the operation of the Commonwealth's HRTO scheme.
The first measure will amend the HRTO scheme to ensure that jailed terrorist offenders who are also serving time for non-terrorist offences remain eligible for consideration for a CDO, a continuing detention order, at the conclusion of their time in prison.
It should not matter whether a terrorist offender's final day of detention is for a terrorist offence or another offence, usually a state offence. What matters is the safety of the Australian public, and the bill will ensure that the community can be protected from terrorist offenders who pose an unacceptable risk to the community of committing a terrorism offence if released from prison.
The second measure brings the options for protecting national security information included in an application for a CDO into line with criminal prosecutions.
The continued detention of terrorist offenders after their sentence of imprisonment has expired is not something this government takes lightly, and the process is subject to stringent procedural safeguards.
These safeguards must be balanced against the need to protect information of intelligence agencies and sensitive sources. At present, the protections for information in an application are different to those available in a criminal trial: they only serve to limit what can be disclosed to the public, and do not allow for the full range of protections that a court may order, including under the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004.
The bill will amend this to provide that the information given to the terrorist offender is subject to any orders the court makes for the protection of national security information.
It needs to be stressed that this amendment will in no way allow for the use of secret evidence in CDO proceedings. When deciding whether to issue a continuing detention order, a court can only rely on the same information in the proceedings that has been provided to the terrorist offender. The courts also oversee the protection of sensitive information, and they will retain the ultimate power to determine the appropriate orders to protect the information and their impact on the fairness of proceedings.
With these amendments, the government can get on with the job of protecting the Australian people from the risks posed by terrorist offenders who pose an ongoing and unacceptable risk.
Conclusion
This bill demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to protecting the Australian community from terrorism.
To enable the parliament to give full consideration of this important bill, the government is writing to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to ask it to examine this bill.
On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will amend the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 (the FITS Act).
The FITS Act commenced on 10 December 2018. The act established a registration scheme for persons undertaking certain activities on behalf of a foreign governments, foreign political organisations, and foreign government related entities or individuals.
The scheme is the first of its kind in Australia and a key transparency measure which will help protect the integrity of Australia's democratic institutions, systems and processes from covert foreign influence. This will be of particular importance in the upcoming federal election period.
The amendments proposed in this bill are intended to improve the operation of the scheme by clarifying the scope of a number of key provisions and aligning various requirements for those liable to register under the scheme. Ultimately, these measures will ensure that the scheme provides the level of transparency about foreign influence in Australian democratic processes which was intended.
Ame ndments to sections 13 and 14— communications activity
The bill amends the definition of 'communications activity' in section 13 to the production of information or material on behalf of a foreign principal for the purpose of that information or material being communicated or distributed to the public. Currently, a person who produces information or material for a foreign principal does not have to register under the scheme if that material is given to another party to disseminate. Similarly, the producer does not currently have to ensure that the information or material includes a disclosure about the foreign principal.
For example, it means that an advertisement produced on behalf of a foreign government for the purpose of influencing the voters at the upcoming election, but which is distributed by another party, would not be subject to the same registration and disclosure obligations as other registrable communications activity.
These amendments will ensure that producers of relevant information or material will be liable to register and required to ensure the information or material includes a disclosure about the role that the foreign principal played in its production. Amendments to section 14 will ensure that a person's belief about the intention of the foreign principal for whom they are undertaking an activity will be taken into account when determining the purpose of the activity.
Amendme nts to sections 35, 37 and 38— reporting obligations
The bill will amend sections 35, 37 and 38 of the FITS Act. These amendments address gaps in the act's reporting obligations and will align the reporting and registration timeframes under the FITS Act. Currently, the reporting obligations under the FITS Act only apply to a person who is already registered under the scheme, and do not apply to a person who is liable to register, but has not yet actually done so. The amendments will ensure that a person must report all registrable activity undertaken from the time they become liable to register, rather than just the activities they undertake after registering.
The amendments will also consolidate the reporting obligations relating to disbursement activities into section 35 so that all disbursement activities which are undertaken accumulate, regardless of whether they are undertaken during a voting period. These amendments will close a gap in the operation of the scheme and will ensure that all registrable activity is reported.
The bill will also amend section 38 of the FITS Act to ensure that any communications activity undertaken on behalf of a foreign principal contains the appropriate disclosures about the foreign principal, regardless of whether the person undertaking the activity is already registered. This will mean that any communications activity is required to include the relevant disclosures so that the role of the foreign principal in the production, communication or dissemination of the information or material, is transparent to the recipients of the material.
Amendments to section 57— offence of reckless omission
Finally, the bill will make technical amendments to the offences set out in subsections 57(3) and (4) to improve the workability of the offences. The amendments will provide that omitting to register or renew registration under the scheme is a circumstance of the offence, rather than referring to a 'reckless omission' which is not a defined term in the Criminal Code. These amendments do not alter the conduct which is criminalised by the offences, but rather ensure that they operate consistently with other Commonwealth criminal laws.
Conclusion
These are important amendments which clarify the operation of the scheme. With the exception of section 14, which was a recommendation by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the provisions contained in the amendment bill are consistent with the original bill as introduced to the Senate in June 2018. The amendment to section 14 provides greater clarity and gives effect to the parliamentary joint committee's recommendation. The amendments in this bill do not change the intent of the scheme.
The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme is a significant step forward in providing transparency over foreign influence in Australian democratic and political processes. The provisions in this bill will give better effect to the important transparency intention of the FITS Act. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It gives me great pleasure to present the Water Amendment (Indigenous Authority Member) Bill 2019. The Australian government is committed to implementing the Basin Plan. We are committed to doing so in ways that deliver the best outcomes for the basin, its environment and its many industries and communities. Water lies at the core of the basin. Water supports the diverse and complex ecology that exists throughout the basin. Water drives agricultural production and the associated wealth supports regional communities and the nation. Water is at the heart of the spiritual and cultural traditions of basin Indigenous communities.
At the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting in December 2018, basin states made a commitment, in agreement with the Australian government, to establish a position on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for a standing Indigenous authority member. This bill delivers on that commitment.
It also continues the work of the government in developing programs and opportunities for Indigenous communities in the basin, to enable them to maintain their spiritual and cultural connection to the river, as well as developing viable economic opportunities.
Aboriginal people are the traditional custodians of the Murray-Darling Basin. While a great deal of work has been undertaken by the government to improve engagement with Indigenous communities in the basin, there is more that we can do. The establishment of the standing Indigenous position on the authority continues this work, by improving Indigenous involvement with basin water resources and recognising the knowledge and expertise that Indigenous communities can bring to the authority.
The bill provides that the Indigenous authority member will be an Indigenous person and that they will be appointed on the basis of their high level of expertise regarding Indigenous matters relevant to basin water resources. They will not be appointed to represent particular regions or organisations, but to represent the interests of Indigenous communities across the basin.
To be eligible to be appointed to, or to act in, the Indigenous member position, a person will need to meet the definition of Indigenous person contained in section 4 of the Water Act. Section 4 defines 'Indigenous person' as a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia or a descendent of an Indigenous inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands. The person will be appointed using the same appointment process that applies to the other part-time members of the authority and will be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment. This includes remuneration and the requirement not to be a member of the governing body of a relevant interest group at the time they are appointed to the authority.
The appointment of an Indigenous person to the Indigenous authority member position does not preclude another Indigenous person being appointed to a different position on the authority.
The creation of the standing Indigenous authority member position builds on the government's strong track record in engaging Indigenous persons and communities in the management of basin water resources. In 2016, a number of amendments were made to the Water Act 2007 to improve Indigenous community engagement in relation to the basin's water resources. They also sought to better recognise the importance of water to the cultural, spiritual and social aspects of Indigenous communities' lives.
Amendments that were made in 2016 included adding 'Indigenous matters relevant to basin water resources' as a field of expertise that may qualify a person for appointment to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It also mandated that the Basin Community Committee, which reports on community concerns and issues around Basin Plan implementation, must include at least two Indigenous persons with expertise in Indigenous matters relevant to basin water resources.
Further amendments made included that the authority must have regard to social, spiritual and cultural matters relevant to Indigenous people in preparing water resource plans. It was also clarified that one of the functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is to engage with Indigenous communities on the use of the management of basin water resources.
All of the amendments made in 2016 have been effective in increasing engagement with Indigenous communities in the basin. Indigenous community groups, for example, are currently being consulted by state governments and the authority as water resources plans are developed and assessed.
In 2018 the government took further steps to ensure that Indigenous communities are able to participate in the economic and cultural life of the river system.
The government has committed $40 million over four years in funding for the Murray-Darling Basin water entitlements program. This initiative is intended to support access to water resources for Indigenous communities in the basin for cultural and economic use, and to increase their involvement in water planning and management. This program is supported by amendments that were made in 2018 to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to enable the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation to purchase water, as well as land.
In 2018, the authority was directed to report publicly on how Indigenous values and uses are considered in environmental water use. Indigenous involvement in that work must now be reported on annually. The authority is also currently working with New South Wales and Queensland to identify water that could be allocated to Indigenous communities through water resource plans.
Funding has been provided to support basin Indigenous organisations for additional project officers in both the southern and northern basin. This support will help these organisations to translate the findings of the National Cultural Flows Research Project into practical and effective ways forward. The National Cultural Flows Research Project, a project driven by and for Aboriginal people, established a national framework for cultural flows. The framework, released in 2018, provides the first guide and method for future planning, delivery, and assessment of cultural flows.
As part of the delivery of the northern basin environmental works program local stakeholders, including business groups, will be consulted as part of the development and implementation of toolkit measures. Priority will be given to Indigenous and local suppliers in the delivery of those works.
The Australian and New South Wales governments are jointly investing up to $30 million for an upgrade of Wilcannia Weir. The Australian and Queensland governments are working together with the local council and community representatives, including Indigenous communities representatives, to identify a potential project at Cunnamulla. These projects are expected to support cultural gatherings and low-impact water recreation, and to improve the health and wellbeing of those communities.
The government recognises that work remains to be done to improve Indigenous engagement in the basin. This need for further progress has been identified, for example, in the recent Productivity Commission assessment report into the basin plan.
The Australian government is committed to continuing to improve engagement with Indigenous communities in the Murray-Darling Basin. This bill is the next step in that process and is an important milestone in Australia's history, recognising the role of Indigenous Australians as the traditional custodians of the Murray-Darling Basin. The government would like to thank all basin water states for their spirit and cooperation in unanimously seeking to ensure an Indigenous person is on the board of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999to improve the provision of default insurance in superannuation.
Given the significance of superannuation to Australians' retirements, the government wants to ensure that people's hard-earned savings are not unnecessarily eroded by inappropriate insurance arrangements.
This bill will address the provision of insurance through superannuation.
This bill requires that insurance be provided on an opt-in basis only for members with balances below $6,000 and any new members from 1 October 2019 who are under the age of 25.
The government has delayed the start date of these elements by three months from the announced commencement of the package to provide additional time for funds to take action and notify members prior to the changes taking affect from 1 October.
The government recognises that insurance through superannuation has value for many Australians. While working on these elements I have been provided with numerous examples of how people have benefitted from having insurance in times of need.
However, what is not always mentioned is the circumstances where people have had a significant proportion, and often their entire account balance eroded by insurance premiums.
The government does not propose to prevent anyone from being able to obtain insurance coverage within superannuation. We are simply trying to ensure that the current settings meet the needs of members without inappropriately eroding their retirement savings.
Default insurance, required under Labor's MySuper reforms, can result in members paying for cover that goes beyond their needs, or paying for multiple policies upon which they cannot claim.
Insurance premiums can reduce low-income earners' retirement balances by 10 per cent or more, compared to having no insurance, increasing with every additional set of policies held by an individual.
That is why, through this bill, the government will ensure that members who are at particular risk of account balance erosion will not have insurance provided as a default unless they have directed otherwise.
The government recognises that many individuals already assess their insurance needs and make informed decisions to hold accounts with a certain level of insurance.
To ensure this measure does not disadvantage engaged members, the legislation allows for a member to elect that they want to maintain their insurance and they will not be subject to the changes in this bill.
I believe that this bill, will benefit young and low-balance members and is in the best interest of all Australians.
The independent Productivity Commission in its final report on superannuation found that, while insurance in super provides value for money for many members, it does not for all.
Particularly for young members or members with low incomes, the Productivity Commission found that insurance in super is poor value and does not meet their needs, meaning that premiums can result in undue erosion of retirement savings.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—
Introduction
The joint facilities we operate with the United States, such as the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap, as well as the Australian facilities that host US strategic capabilities, are some of the most tangible manifestations of the strength and depth of the Australia-United States alliance.
However, due to the classified nature of some of the most sensitive work performed at these facilities, it is necessary that relatively few people are briefed on those roles and functions.
It is therefore in the public interest that governments make periodic public statements on these facilities.
Today, I want to update the parliament and the Australian public on the deliberate policy principles that govern these facilities and the contributions they make not only to regional and global security but to our own security and national prosperity.
The public can have confidence that its government is acting lawfully and responsibly in overseeing such activities and that Australia's continuing support for these activities is in our nation's best interests.
The Australia-United States a lliance — underpinning Australian security
The United States is our most important ally. Our military forces work side by side around the world to meet global security challenges and to promote peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.
No other global power has values and interests more closely aligned with Australia's than the United States.
The presence of US military forces across the Indo-Pacific plays a vital role in ensuring regional security, and the strategic and economic weight of the US is essential to the continued effective functioning of the rules-based global order.
Australia's alliance with the US is enshrined in the ANZUS Treaty, signed on 1 September 1951.
With the support of successive Australian and US governments, the alliance has grown in depth and complexity over time, and it continues to deliver real benefits to both our countries.
The alliance gives us unparalleled access to the most advanced technology, equipment and intelligence, which is central to maintaining the potency of the Australian Defence Force.
Australia sources much of our most critical combat capability from the US.
Australia would be unable to develop the range of high-end capabilities we need without the alliance.
Crucially, the alliance also means that Australia benefits from the extended nuclear deterrence provided by the US.
During the Cold War, the US contributed to the security of its allies through its ability to respond with nuclear weapons if allies were attacked by the Soviet Union.
Today, global geopolitics have changed, but the core principles of extended nuclear deterrence have not.
Potential adversaries understand that an attack on Australia is an attack on the alliance.
This brings me to an important point.
Australia is not only a beneficiary of the US policy of extended nuclear deterrence, it is an active supporter of it, through our joint efforts with the US at Pine Gap and at other facilities, such as the Naval Communications Station Harold E. Holt, and the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station.
As the then-Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, noted in his public statement on Pine Gap in 1984, Australia should not claim the protection of nuclear deterrence without being willing to make a contribution to its effectiveness.
Hosting these joint facilities and US strategic capabilities on our soil is Australia's important contribution to the alliance, and I know it is supported in a bipartisan way by the Labor Party.
The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap – over fifty years of success
The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap has made—and continues to make—a critical contribution to the security of both Australia and the US.
It represents one of the finest examples of collaboration, innovation and integration, and has delivered remarkable intelligence dividends to both our nations.
As its name clearly states, Pine Gap is a 'joint' defence facility, run by the governments of both Australia and the US—as close and enduring partners.
Pine Gap's workforce is split approximately 50:50, between Australians and Americans, with Australians holding key decision-making positions at the facility and having direct involvement in operations and tasking.
Since its establishment in 1967, Pine Gap has evolved from its original Cold War mission, focused on early warning for Soviet ballistic missiles, to meet new demands and new challenges.
It has acquired cutting-edge, innovative technologies to do so.
Pine Gap has become a central element of our intelligence cooperation with the US and it continues to have relevance in delivering intelligence on a range of contemporary security priorities, such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and monitoring foreign weapons development.
Pine Gap also supports compliance monitoring with international arms control and disarmament agreements.
By hosting this capability, Australia supports the verification of adherence to arms control agreements, in keeping with the government's comprehensive policy approach to arms control and counter-proliferation.
It has provided monitoring and early warning capabilities of ballistic missile launches since 1999, following the closure of Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar.
Reliable, early and accurate warning of ballistic missile launches provides a crucial contribution to global stability, with Pine Gap helping to provide reassurance against the possibility of a surprise missile attack.
Much has been theorised about Pine Gap's role, for instance its contribution to US operations against terrorism.
While the Australian government, as a matter of longstanding practice, does not comment on intelligence matters, Australians can be assured that the government has full oversight of activities undertaken at Pine Gap and that these activities are undertaken in accordance with Australian and international law.
The significant value of Australian facilities supporting United States capabilities
While Pine Gap may be the highest profile joint facility on Australian soil, it is not the only facility in Australia that is jointly operated with the US, or that hosts US defence activities and capabilities.
The Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station is another joint facility that Australia operates with the US in Alice Springs.
This facility, run by Geoscience Australia and the US Air Force, was established in 1955 to monitor nuclear explosions during the Cold War.
Today, it performs a crucial role as part of the International Monitoring System of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits 'any nuclear weapon test explosion' anywhere in the world. It is a little-known fact that this research station in Alice Springs detected and geo-located North Korea's sixth nuclear test, on 3 September 2017.
Like Pine Gap, the Naval Communication Station Harold E Holt, in Exmouth, Western Australia, has also contributed to Australia's national security for over half a century. This Australian facility, which was previously jointly operated with the US Navy until we assumed full control in the 1990s, provides communications for Australian and US submarines and ships. This includes communications for the submarine based nuclear deterrence capabilities of the US in the Indo-Pacific, which are crucial to credible deterrence, a stable nuclear balance and our own security.
Another important communications facility is the Australian Defence Satellite Communication Station in Geraldton, Western Australia, which hosts a ground station for US military satellite communications systems used by Australian and US forces on operations. This facility contributes to the safety of deployed Australian and US military personnel.
More than military and intelligence value
While much of the public debate seems to centre on the military applications of US capabilities in Australia or their contributions to intelligence matters, these capabilities also play a crucial role in our everyday lives. In 2017, a new space surveillance radar reached full operational capability at the Harold E Holt facility. This radar serves as a dedicated sensor node in the Global Space Surveillance Network, in support of our combined space operations cooperation with the US, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. It will be joined by a new space surveillance telescope, which is scheduled to reach full operational capability in 2022.
Together, this radar and telescope will identify and track objects in space, which will help satellite owners avoid collisions with space junk and other satellites. With so many aspects of Australian life and business reliant on satellites, if one were to be severely damaged or knocked out of orbit that could have disastrous impacts on Australian individuals and businesses.
As another example, the Learmonth Solar Observatory, also in Western Australia, monitors solar emissions, which helps to protect communications equipment from solar interference. This space weather facility is jointly operated by the Bureau of Meteorology and the US Air Force. Solar weather can affect transmission quality for services, such as mobile phone and internet networks as well as television and radio transmissions. Solar weather can also affect power grids, causing blackouts. Predicting solar weather is important because it allows organisations that own infrastructure, such as satellites, communication networks or power grids, to mitigate its impacts. This is particularly relevant as more people use wireless internet devices as part of their daily lives, whether that be for entertainment, education, social media or business.
Our work with the US has also allowed us to share critical information. As a result, the intelligence we produce together has saved lives. It has saved American and Australian lives, not only on the battlefield, but it has saved civilian lives as well.
Protecting and enhancing our economic wellbeing
As outlined in the 2016 defence white paper, defending our maritime trade routes is part of Australia's primary strategic defence priorities. These maritime highways are the backbone of our foreign trade coming in and out of Australia. It is crucial for Australian jobs and our economy that these routes remain open and secure, with unimpeded freedom of access.
Regional actions have the ability to adversely impact regional security and economic stability. Facilities such as Pine Gap help reduce this risk, in support of the rules based global order, by providing early warning of potentially hostile activities and developments that threaten to destabilise the region.
It is also important to recognise the real economic and social benefits these facilities have in regional Australia. Apart from the jobs generated directly by these facilities, workers contribute to local economies and form part of the social fabric of these communities.
Full k nowledge and c oncurrence —protecting Australia' s sovereignty
While successive Australian governments have recognised the national security benefits that we gain from the joint facilities and by hosting US capabilities, they have also recognised that our national interests and sovereignty have to be honoured and protected. This has been achieved, as the shadow minister would know, by our policy of full knowledge and concurrence.
Full knowledge and concurrence is central to Australia hosting any foreign capability, be they from the US or any other country. It is an expression of Australia's sovereignty and a fundamental right to know what activities foreign governments conduct on our soil.
It is an expression of Australia's sovereignty and a fundamental right to know what activities foreign governments conduct on our soil.
'Full knowledge' equates to Australia having a full and detailed understanding of any capability or activity with a presence on Australian territory or making use of Australian assets.
'Concurrence' means that Australia approves the presence of a capability or function in Australia, in support of mutually-agreed goals.
It doesn't mean that Australia approves each and every activity or tasking undertaken; rather, it means that Australia agrees to the purpose of activities conducted in Australia and also understands the outcomes of those activities.
But I can assure the parliament and the Australian public, we maintain appropriate levels of oversight for the activities undertaken.
Importantly, concurrence also means that Australia can withdraw agreement if the government considers that necessary.
At a practical level, full knowledge and concurrence means:
First, that Australia is to be consulted about any new purpose proposed for any activity, or a significant change to an existing purpose, and we will be advised of any significant change to expected outcomes.
Second, it means that Australia will be briefed and advised on outcomes actually achieved.
And finally, proposals for new equipment or significant upgrades to existing equipment, including communications links, will be advised in sufficient time to confirm that the changes align with mutually-agreed purposes, or to seek further clarification, if required.
There is much work undertaken to ensure that the objectives of these practical steps are met.
The Department of Defence regularly reviews the management and implementation of this policy to ensure—and be fully satisfied—that governance is effective and being appropriately and stringently adhered to.
Australians who hold senior positions at these joint facilities, as well as at Australian facilities that are used by foreign governments, are fully and deeply integrated into decision-making and implementation processes.
While the details of the policy and its implementation have evolved over time, to better reflect the changes in our national security environment and to keep pace with technological progress, the fundamental principles of full knowledge and concurrence have not changed, and we are never complacent about its application.
Conclusion
It's in both nations' interests to have a secure and stable region, and the joint facilities and capabilities all play their role in ensuring regional security and stability is achieved.
But the alliance and regional stability cannot be taken for granted.
This government remains committed to growing and deepening all aspects of the relationship and working with the US to advance our mutual defence and security interests.
Our defence and intelligence cooperation will continue to evolve to meet ever-changing threats and challenges. As it must.
The spirit of innovation shared by our nations will continue to support the Australia-US Alliance and continue to be our strength, as the alliance evolves now and into the future.
As we adapt to meet new challenges to the rules based global order, our defence and intelligence cooperation and joint facilities will endure as our ever-vigilant eyes and ears in the world.
I thank the House. I present a copy of my statement.
As the minister has said, the nature of the functions performed at Pine Gap are such that they need to be done within the context of a great deal of security and confidentiality, and therefore the making of a statement by the minister about the operations of Pine Gap and the other joint facilities to this parliament and, through it, to the Australian people is a very important statement to make indeed, and we thank the minister for making it. It is a statement that has been made as a step in a series of statements that ministers over the years have made in relation to the joint facilities since they came into operation.
On this occasion, perhaps the most important point I can make in response is that, happily, Labor supports every word the minister has said today. We won't try to be in that habit too much, but we can say that today! But, in all seriousness, in a sense, there is a habit of doing that in relation to national security, defence and foreign affairs, where there is a great deal in common between the major parties. The significance of the United States alliance to Australia's world view, the joint facilities that are operated consistent with that alliance—Pine Gap being the most significant of them—and the policy of operating those facilities with full knowledge and concurrence have absolutely been bipartisan policy between the major parties since the joint facilities came into operation, and they are very much bipartisan policy of the major parties today.
At the heart of what underpins the joint facilities is our alliance with the United States. As the minister said, that formally began with the signing of the ANZUS Treaty back on 1 September 1951. But the relationship between Australia and the United States goes back much further than that. Last year, on 4 July, we celebrated what we coined 'the century of mateship': 100 years since the Battle of Hamel in the First World War, in which American and Australian troops fought together and General Sir John Monash, in that battle, commanded American troops for the first time. Since then, from the Western Front in France to Papua New Guinea, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan—indeed, every conflict in which America has participated since then—Australia has been there side-by-side with the United States, and it has forged a very significant relationship which is at the heart of our foreign and strategic policy.
The relationship has its foundation in shared values. They are values that, domestically, are about democracy and the rule of law but, importantly, they are values that have sought to establish a global, rules based order. Those things that emerged out of the Second World War and the Bretton Woods institutions—things like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—are all critical international norms which both Australia and the United States fundamentally believe in and try to make sure are asserted globally so that the world operates not on the basis of force but on the basis of reason.
We have a unique military relationship with the United States where we operate hand in hand with them not just in times of war but in times of peace and through exercises. Exercise Talisman Sabre, which occurs biennially and is occurring this year, is a significant exercise that the Australian Defence Force engages in—really the most significant exercise that the Australian Defence Force engages in—and is done hand in hand with the United States Armed Forces. We are embedded in a range of positions within the United States military. For example, the deputy commander of the United States Army in the Pacific is institutionally an Australian. Right now it is a position occupied by Major General Roger Noble. It's a position that has been occupied previously by the current Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Rick Burr. We need only to look at the marine rotation in Darwin to again see an example of the extent of cooperation between the United States and Australia. It's in that context that the joint facilities operate.
Australia and the United States established joint facilities at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory, Nurrungar in Woomera and North West Cape in Western Australia back in the 1960s. Nurrungar was commissioned in 1969 and then decommissioned 30 years later, in 1999. Pine Gap, which is the most prominent of the joint facilities, was commissioned back in 1967. It was in 1976 that we can perhaps first see it as a joint defence facility where the full policy of full knowledge and concurrence began to operate. As the minister articulated, that is full knowledge on the part of Australia as to what the function of Pine Gap is and what it does and full concurrence in the authorisation of those functions. In other words: what it does, it does with the permission of Australia and the United States together.
In 1984, as the minister alluded to, the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, in one of the first statements to the parliament about the operations of Pine Gap, pointed to its significance in maintaining a strategic balance between the then superpowers during the Cold War. But, as the minister pointed out, he also explained Australia's national interest in the operations of Pine Gap. He made the point that Australia enjoyed the protection of America's extended nuclear deterrence and that in enjoying that protection it was important that Australia played its part, and Pine Gap was a perfect example of that.
In 1988, when Prime Minister Bob Hawke again made a statement to this parliament about Pine Gap, he reiterated the extent to which Pine Gap not only served the United States' national interest but served Australia's. In 2007, the then Minister for Defence, Dr Brendan Nelson, again reinforced the contribution that was being made by Pine Gap to Australia's national interest and to the policy of full knowledge and concurrence. This, again, was affirmed by the then Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, back in 2013. And it's in that line of statements that the minister has added his own today.
As the minister outlined, Pine Gap is involved in the collection of intelligence data on a range of security priorities, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, along with monitoring foreign weapons developments. It also provides ballistic missile early-warning information.
In my role, I have been fortunate enough to visit Pine Gap, which I did last year and to see firsthand what a remarkable institution it is. It's an institution which employs hundreds of people. The notion of it being joint can be felt the moment that you walk inside that place. There is a sense in which, actually, nationality between Australia and the United States seems to dissolve; it is just a group of people working on an endeavour. It's really clear—embodied, in fact, by the deputy manager of the operation, who is an Australian—that Australians occupy senior positions throughout the facility; Australians manage Americans and Americans manage Australians. Indeed, national identity inside that building doesn't seem to matter. It is a place where there is a unified aim in terms of the objective between both Australia and the United States. It is actually a wonderful thing to see. It is, obviously, a place where you see science at the cutting edge. This is a deeply high-tech facility which, in turn, in that sense, provides Australia with an enormous capability dividend.
I had dinner when I was there with our American host. It was clear in talking with our American host and those in Alice Springs that the American community who work at Pine Gap have been received by that town really well. And, indeed, the Americans seem to get into the spirit of life in the Centre and enjoy the time that they spend in Alice Springs.
As I said, obviously, there is a lot that we cannot say about what happens at Pine Gap. But it is clear that the sensitive nature of what goes on there and the high degree of cooperation which occurs between Australia and the United States in the performance of those functions almost define Pine Gap as being the centre of trust as it is expressed in our alliance with the United States. Pine Gap is one of the joint facilities. It is the most significant, but there are others, as the minister has noted. The Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station, which was established in 1955 and which also operates in Alice Springs, is jointly run by the US Air Force and Geoscience Australia. As the minister indicated, it was originally established to monitor nuclear explosions during the Cold War, but it does now play a critical role in monitoring the international system in respect of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The minister referred to the fact that it was there that the sixth North Korean detonation was first picked up.
The Naval Communication Station Harold E Holt, on the North West Cape of Western Australia, is also a joint facility. It was originally commissioned as a United States base back in 1967. It became a joint facility in 1974 under the Whitlam government and, indeed, an Australian facility in 1993 under the Hawke government. In July 2008, the then defence minister, Minister Fitzgibbon, and the then US defence secretary, Robert Gates, signed a treaty between Australia and the United States which provided for the United States to have access to the Australian facility over the next 25 years. It provides communications for both Australian and US submarines and ships. A new space surveillance radar operating from this facility has reached full operational capability as of 2017 and serves as a dedicated sensor node. There are other joint facilities that the minister has mentioned—the Learmonth Solar Observatory and the Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station in Geraldton—which also play important roles and are operated jointly by agencies in the United States and Australia.
As I said, the joint facilities go to the heart of defining the trust that exists between Australia and the United States in the context of our alliance. That we are prepared to operate at the very core of our national interests just demonstrates exactly how close our relationship is. Kim Beazley, writing on the 50th anniversary of Pine Gap, referred to a phrase used by the late Des Ball, who said, in respect of the joint facilities, that they represent 'the strategic essence of the alliance', which is between Australia and America. That statement is absolutely true now. These are really important facilities in the context of the alliance. They're very important facilities in the context of Australia's national interests. They are run with full knowledge and concurrence, and they are run and supported on that basis in a completely bipartisan way between the major parties in this country.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019. As you know, the bill amends the Governor-General Act 1974 to set the salary for the next Governor-General, His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley AC DSC (Retd). On 16 December 2018, the Prime Minister announced that the Queen had approved his recommendation to appoint His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley AC DSC (Retd) as our next Governor-General following the retirement of His Excellency General the Hon. Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd). General Hurley will be sworn in as Governor-General in June 2019.
Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the salary of the Governor-General shall not be altered during their continuance in office. As such, the salaries of governors-general are set prior to the commencement of their tenure. The bill amends the Governor-General Act 1974 to change the sum payable for the salary of the Governor-General from $425,000 to $495,000. In line with past practice, the proposed salary was calculated by reference to the estimated average salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia over the notional five-year term of the appointment of the Governor-General. The salary figure has been reduced to take account of General Hurley receiving a Commonwealth funded military pension.
Labor supports this bill. I, like other members of the Labor caucus and the opposition, welcome the appointment of General Hurley, and we're looking forward to his taking up of the office as Governor-General in June 2019. I want to take the opportunity, in speaking to the topic of governors-general, to place on the record some comments supporting the office and the work that it does. I'm well-known as being an avowed republican. I worked on the republican referendum in 1999. I was out there staffing the booths and encouraging a change, but that does not diminish my respect for the Queen and nor does it diminish my respect for the Queen's representative in Australia. I've long been a supporter of the important work that this office does, obviously not just in its official capacity of assenting to bills passed by this parliament but in the important leadership that the role shows. I want to pay tribute, of course, to our current Governor-General and to a couple of previous governors-general who I've certainly taken a lot of heart from in the work that they've done.
In respect of our current Governor-General, I have such great respect for him. He's been an excellent Governor-General, and I'm sure those opposite would agree. You see him at all sorts of community events. He's a well-known supporter of some of the most important cultural events that we have but also of some of the more grassroots style events. For example, you often see the current Governor-General at the annual walk for organ donation that takes place right here in Canberra. I see the Minister for Health nodding his head. I know he's a great supporter of organ donation, and it is very much a bipartisan position that we are lucky to have here in this House. I think it's important to pay tribute to the Governor-General for his support of such important causes. For many of us, organ donation is very dear to our hearts, particularly those who have lost loved ones, family and friends, and someone has then had to make the decision about whether to approve organ donation when registration may not have been filled out. It's a good reminder to all of us to make sure we do update our health records and get on the Organ Donation Register and have the conversation about organ donation with our family and friends.
I also wanted to mention that the current Governor-General is a much loved figure in Australia not only for the work that he did in East Timor in the time of the Howard government but, closer to home, for the work he did during Cyclone Larry. It is particularly pertinent to me because I've got family from Innisfail. I'm sure you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, the devastation that was wreaked on Innisfail by Cyclone Larry. Cyclone Larry, named after my father! As you would expect, he got a few jokes about that. But those jokes did really fade once the extent of the devastation on Innisfail was felt. Of course, you can't help but think of Cyclone Larry now, when you hear of the devastation of Townsville that has been caused by the recent floods. But our current Governor-General, well before he was Governor-General, was tasked with heading to Innisfail and helping to repair some of the devastation that had been caused, and that took many years. I know that my colleagues from the far north of Queensland, and from the north of Queensland, no matter which side of the House they might be on, would see that as a real template for modern responses to disaster relief.
Obviously, we've had some discussions in this House about the current response to the Townsville floods. I myself was in the 2011 Brisbane floods. We had a 10-month-old baby at the time, Deputy Speaker, so you can imagine that wasn't the most pleasant time, with all the power going out and people being flooded in. We were living in Bulimba. I digress, but it's important that disaster relief continue to be a focus for the Commonwealth, and of course, at the time, there was significant support provided by the Commonwealth to Brisbane through additional people from the Department of Human Services, and others, getting to Queensland to make sure that people were able to get the support that they needed.
So I know that people will very fondly miss the current Governor-General when he leaves the role. I'm quite sure that he will continue to be an active member of our community and a leader within our community.
In that respect, it would be remiss of me not to mention Dame Quentin Bryce, his predecessor as Governor-General. I am always so grateful for Dame Quentin Bryce's continued participation in important matters in our community. She regularly attends the Greenslopes Private Hospital's Anzac Day dawn service. For those who haven't been to that service, it's a beautiful dawn service, and I can recommend it if you do get to the electorate of Griffith. Greenslopes Private is an old Army hospital. It still has very strong focus on veterans. It's an excellent institution. You've probably heard, Deputy Speaker, of the Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation which is associated with that hospital and does very good work for veterans, including in relation to PTSD, a very important issue for veterans in our country and across the world. Former Governor-General Quentin Bryce continues, after leaving that office, to be a regular attendee of that beautiful dawn service and to lay a wreath, which I know that the veterans community and the broader community around Greenslopes and the suburbs that surround it really appreciate. We've certainly lost some veterans in recent years. Anzac Day morning is always very moving in my electorate, but having the former Governor-General attend is very special.
Since I'm mentioning governors-general, I should say, in respect of Dame Quentin Bryce, that, as she had such a sterling career prior to taking on the vice-regal role, she is a real role model and inspiration for a lot of women—young women, women my age, women who are older—about the role of a woman in public life. I know you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, that she is someone who has always conducted herself with great grace but, at the same time, has been a real trailblazer—someone who stepped up into the law but also into community service well before it was common for women to do so. As well as acknowledging her community service post the role of Governor-General and, of course, the great work she did as Governor-General, I should recognise that she was an inspiration well before taking on the vice-regal role.
But I also want to mention the first Governor-General I ever saw in person. The reason I want to mention that is that I have been thinking of the people of Townsville in recent days and thinking of how that community comes together. I lived in Townsville for a few years a long time ago and I know firsthand how resilient the community is. Of course, everyone in this House will recall the Black Hawk disaster of the late 1990s. I was there at the time and, believe it or not, I was a student representative at the memorial service that was held at the Palmetum in Townsville in the wake of the Black Hawk disaster. Sir William Deane, who was Governor-General at the time, brought the best wishes of the entire Commonwealth with him, telling the community of Townsville that the nation's thoughts were with them at that horrible time. It's an Army town. It's an Air Force town. Everyone who lives in Townsville feels such an affinity with the Defence Force. They feel so close to those who serve. It's just inherent for someone who lives in Townsville to support the Army and support the Air Force, so it was a tragedy that really rocked the entire community and people were devastated. Having Sir William Deane come and express, with such grace, the wishes of the nation was really important for the healing in the wake of that terrible tragedy.
Showing leadership, speaking on behalf of the nation and being the democratically elected representative for the nation is something prime ministers can and should do. But, because the role of Governor-General is removed from political cycles and elections, it has a really strongly complementary role to the role of democratically elected representatives in bringing the nation together and showing great leadership.
The first time I really understood the office of Governor-General was in the wake of that disaster. So, in speaking to this bill, which relates to the rather less elevated matter of salary, I did want to place on record my thanks to all of those who've served in that office. But, of course, it's not really a salary; it's more in the nature of an honorarium. It's an acknowledgement of the weight upon the shoulders of the person in the office, and that's a very great weight to bear. We don't know what the future holds. Of course, none of us do. But, given the times that we live in—uncertain international times, uncertain times in relation to the impact of climate change on natural disasters and the likelihood of further significant weather events, and, of course, we've got a cyclone brewing off the coast of Queensland as we speak at the same time as Queenslanders are responding to an environmental disaster around Townsville—I think we can confidently predict that there will be challenges for the Governor-General into the future and, similarly, there will be a lot of pressure on that person. So I certainly wish General Hurley very well as he prepares to take up this important role. In a very real and practical way, our nation will rely upon him to help guide us through the challenges that are to come. Obviously, I don't wish to take up too much of the House's time on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019—
Opposition members interjecting —
I hear some calls for an encore from colleagues on the backbench.
Tell us about Sir John Kerr!
Give us some Isaac Isaacs!
I've been very generous in allowing a breadth of debate here, but there is a limit.
I'm very grateful for the suggestions from colleagues in the caucus on other governors-general that I might wish to mention. I take the interjection on Sir Isaac Isaacs. He was the first Australian-born Governor-General, as the shadow minister for defence said. His name was very influential in the naming of our son, Isaac, at the encouragement of my husband. So, thank you—I do take that interjection. Thank you to the member for Gellibrand, and I encourage the member for Gellibrand to continue to make suggestions for the improvement of my speeches to the House. Clearly, that was a very good one, and he ought to keep going. I'm not as convinced about the member for Hume's interjections. He is obviously welcome to speak in this debate about whichever governors-general he might choose, but he should continue—
An honourable member: Do you mean the member for Bruce?
I do mean Bruce. Who is Hume?
Hume is the big-stick guy.
In that case, I deeply regret the implication that you might be in any way connected with Hume. I'm sure the people of Hume will look forward to finding another representative in the future. But the people of Bruce are very fortunate to have you, of course, Member for Bruce. But I digress.
It's an absolute honour to speak in relation to this bill. I wish the new Governor-General all the best with the important responsibilities that he assuming, and I certainly look forward to seeing him play an important role in our nation's future.
I take great pleasure in rising to talk to the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019. It's good to see that the opposition are in support of this bill. Obviously, the purpose of the bill is to set out the salary of the incoming Governor-General, knowing that the salary is in place for five years and knowing that convention has it that we don't alter the salary of the Governor-General throughout the course of his term, and, therefore, it is set in line with the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. It has also been a practice that when incoming governor-generals have a pension associated with their term in the military that is taken into account. We have set the annual salary for the incoming Governor-General, His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley.
General Hurley is a former Chief of the Defence Force and he's been a very popular governor of New South Wales. General Hurley is known as being generous and very approachable with both young and old alike. This is seen in his weekly boxing work-outs with Indigenous children. He's got a program running called Tribal Warriors. He's a prodigious traveller throughout regional New South Wales. He's dedicated his life to serving and supporting the Australian nation, and his compassion and commitment to Australia was displayed during his 42 years in the Australian Army, for which he was appointed as a Companion of the Order of Australia for eminent service to the Australian Defence Force. Also, he received the Distinguished Service Cross for his leadership and service during Operation Solace in Somalia in 1993. I don't think anybody can have any doubt about the pedigree of the honourable David Hurley and the fact he's in line to become our next Governor-General. It looks like he's been an exceptional choice.
Under section 3, as I said, the salary of the Governor-General cannot be altered for the term of the appointment. So, whatever we set it at at the commencement of his term will be for the continuation of his term. We also know that the appointment of the Governor-General is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. It has to be subject to the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, but that tends to be acknowledged as just par for the course. Once someone is put forward, they are always accepted.
We have also through our history had a range of appointments that have happened very close to elections. I know that we've had noise coming out of the opposition, perhaps saying maybe this appointment could have waited till after the election, but Sir William Deane was appointed 15 days prior to John Howard winning his election in 1996, and we also know that Gough Whitlam chose John Kerr as Governor-General in May ahead of a July election in 1974.
So I would think that we understand that the time is coming for Sir Peter Cosgrove to step aside and, like the previous speaker, we need to be very respectful and mindful of what a fantastic job Sir Peter Cosgrove has done in the role as Governor-General. I too was there only last week when he started off about 10,000 walkers around Lake Burley Griffin to raise awareness for organ donation. It's a great cause to promote, because we tend to think that we must have thousands and thousands and thousands of people that are beneficiaries of organ donation, but in Australia, because of the unique way in which an organ donor has to pass away, it's a very small selection of Australians who are actually able to have their organs reused. We need to keep the message out there. Have that conversation with your families because everybody in your family has to know it is your wish, as it is mine, that, if you happen to die in the circumstances that allow the surgeons to prepare somebody to use your organs—and Peter Cosgrove has been out there pushing this cause for years and years.
The other aspect that Peter Cosgrove is well known for within the coalition government is with the ministers. It's his knowledge of the bills. As we understand our political system, it has to go over to the Governor-General for his sign-off, but the Governor-General is very adept, very good at questioning the ministers on each of the legislation, so he's taken the time to understand what the legislation is about and understand the impacts, positive and negative, about legislation that's put through. So, when asking for the royal assent, it's not unusual for Peter Cosgrove to be really putting the ministers under the grill and asking them all about the legislation that he is expected to be just signing off.
I was unaware of the work that Sir Peter Cosgrove did during Cyclone Larry and the work he did around Innisfail, but again it comes as no surprise that he is well regarded by the people there at the time. So I think that, again, this is a really fantastic time, and I must also add that there are always going to be some what are going to be calling for an end to our monarchical system. However, in my opinion it also needs to be acknowledged that it's one of these First World problems that people have. Nobody's life at the moment is diminished one iota by the fact that we have a monarchical system with a Governor-General as our head of state. If we change it tomorrow, no-one's life is going to be enhanced one iota. No-one's going to get a job. No-one's going to actually wake up and all of a sudden have their life improved in any material way. Will they have some greater sense of pride? If that's what floats their boat, fine, but, with all of the real problems this nation has—the real challenges that this nation has—with all the work, the effort and the energy we need to be putting into helping our farmers, our industry, our unemployed, our aged, our children and our First Peoples, we have so many challenges that are real and genuine needs for energy, effort and resources. To be worried about this First World problem that we've got a monarchical system that seems to be the envy of the rest of the world and yet we've got these people who are super concerned about it—I just don't quite get that. As I said, as we get up out of bed and we work as hard as we possibly can through every day to try to achieve outcomes. As an issue of global significance, this just doesn't even quite get onto the radar.
I want to thank the opposition for supporting this bill. I want to pay tribute to the outgoing Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, and thank him for the work that he has done in a million different areas—not just in his official capacity but in all the other extracurricular work that he has taken on board because he's a quality person. I also want to congratulate the incoming Governor-General, General Hurley. I congratulate him on his appointment. I'm sure he's going to be an amazing Governor-General for this great country.
Sometimes in the life of a parliamentarian you see the list of legislation coming before this House and you do start to scratch your head at some of the truly remarkable things that we have to turn our attention to! It's remarkable that today, as we get ever closer to the next federal election, and as we think about the dying minutes of this parliament's capacity to debate important legislation, we bring ourselves now to debate the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019. This is a piece of legislation that reminds us deeply of the anachronism that is the constitutional monarchy that we exist within today.
It is an important piece of legislation for a number of reasons, though. It's important because, under the terms of our Constitution, the salary of the Governor-General cannot be amended during the term of that Governor-General. So it is absolutely vital that we as a parliament turn our minds to that salary before the term of a new incoming Governor-General commences—in this case, the Hon. David Hurley AC, who will be sworn in in June. It is important that this legislation passes the parliament properly so that his salary can be set in accordance with section 3 of the Constitution.
But in doing that, it does remind us all that what we're doing here is not in terms of setting the salary of the person who is our head of state and we're not setting the salary of the person who is actually the head of our government. What we're doing is setting the salary of a person who is, effectively, the viceroy of Australia—the person who comes into this place when we convene for the first time as the nation's parliament after an election to commence the parliament in the place of a person who is our monarch; in the place of the person who very rarely ever visits this great country of ours. This is a person whose opportunity to hold that office as our head of state is dictated by who their parents were.
Now, I don't cast any aspersion on the individual person who is currently our head of state, our monarch, because people who have done that previously in this parliament have been found ejected from their seats and by-elections called. What I do draw to the House's attention is that in having to have this discussion and this debate, and in having to deal with this legislation, I think it is worthwhile remembering and thinking about who the representative of the monarch in Australia, the holder of the office of Governor-General, is and what it is that that office represents.
As I said before, that is the office, effectively, of viceroy—an office that has been overthrown in so many other parts of the world where they have recognise the importance of having one of their own as their own head of state. They have recognised the deep discrimination that exists in the concept of monarchy. I say that particularly as someone who comes from a long line of Irish Catholic stock. It is not just the fact that I'm not a member of the royal family that would prevent me from ever becoming the head of state of Australia but it is my religious faith that would prevent me from ever becoming the head of state of this nation under our current constitutional arrangements.
This brings me to the very interesting fact, I think, that the first Australian-born Governor-General—the first Australian-born to hold that office—was also the first Jewish person to hold that office. Interestingly enough, there is no prohibition on a Jew becoming the head of state. They would have to be head of the Church of England, but there is no expressed prohibition, as exists for Catholics, to become the head of state. As such, I think that highlights just one part that the anachronism that is our constitutional arrangements.
I'd also like to draw the attention of the House to the point that when it comes to the very specifics of this bill: it's setting the salary. Rightly, the salary is determined by reference to the head of another arm of government, the Chief Justice of Australia. In this particular case, the salary of the incoming Governor-General will be slightly reduced to account for the fact that the incoming Governor-General is already receiving, rightly, a military pension. Usually the amount of money that will be paid to a Governor-General is much more than the holder of that office may have ever earnt in their entire life. For the person who holds the office of Chief Justice of Australia, usually their salary amounts to about 10 per cent of what they earned before they became a judge in our judicial system. There's quite a difference in the nature of the work performed.
In saying that, the role of Governor-General is not to be diminished; it's incredibly important. It's incredibly important in two ways. It's incredibly important because it holds the very serious role of attesting to bills that come through this parliament. It holds the very important role of providing some advice back to the executive. It performs the very important role of signing off matters that come through the federal executive council, largely in the forms of regulation and other forms of lower legislation that are handed over to the responsibility of the Governor-General in council. Those are very important roles. They performs a very important function. But, at the end of the day, that function is effectively one done only ever at the advice of, and because of the advice of, the democratically elected executive that comes from our parliaments, which shows the distinction that exists there in the functional role.
This is why the symbolism of the role is so important. It also provides an important function in representing our nation because, as I said before, our actual head of state never actually comes here. So we do need to have someone who is able to perform that role as the head of our nation that is above politics, that is not partisan, that is able to perform the role of bringing people together in many different ways and at different times—often at times of great national tragedy. Other speakers have spoken about the works of governors-general that have visited communities that have suffered from bushfire, have suffered from flood or are suffering from drought. That is an important role. It is important for those communities. My own community suffered devastating bushfire only a few years ago, and I know how important it is to have someone that is seen as the head of our nation visiting those communities, consoling those communities and letting them understand that the nation mourns and suffers with them. That is an important role that the Governor-General performs.
But there's a gap. There is a gap in the way the Governor-General can do that because they do that not as a representative of the entire polity of Australia; they do it as a representative of the monarch. Imagine how much more powerful the holder of that role would be in the eyes of the Australian community if they were able to visit those communities, to console, to offer support, to lend strength and to stand for the entire nation if they were able to do that as a truly Australian representative of Australians. That, I think, is something we should continue to strive towards. It's why it is so important that we don't just push the concept of an Australian head of state off to the side, off to the never-never, because we don't see it as the most pressing issue confronting our nation. I don't say that that is an issue more pressing than proper funding of our schools. I don't say that's an issue more pressing than the proper funding of our hospitals. But, unlike the current government, we believe that it is possible to walk and chew gum. It is possible to work on multiple issues confronting the nation at once, and that people want to be engaged in those discussions.
The office, in and of itself, is a historical anachronism. As I started these remarks, I highlighted that point. You pick up the list of legislation for this week and you think: 'We've got to do what? We've got to come in and set the salary for the Queen's representative here in Australia? Again?' Whilst it is an important constitutional requirement that the parliament does it, it does, as I say, continue to highlight this issue that we cannot just leave to the side—that we need to move forward as a nation and leave these shackles behind us. As I say at every citizenship ceremony that I attend, which I so love attending, we are a nation that is made great by our own diversity. We are a nation that continues to improve because of the diversity that we have in our nation, that continues to come here and that adds to the great, complex tapestry of over 60,000 years of Aboriginal history here.
I love going into my schools in my electorate and talking about the fact that, in Perth, we have had continual settlement on the banks of the Swan River, the Derbarl Yerrigan, for over 40,000 years. Everyone knows about the Colosseum, but it has only been there for a few thousand years. There has been continual settlement for 40,000 years on the banks of the Derbarl Yerrigan. The Aboriginal people of Perth, the Noongar and Whadjuk people, tell a great story of the Swan River and its making via a sea serpent and the path that it travelled to sea. What's fascinating about that story is that, in the story, the path that it takes is a pathway that has not been visible to human eyes for hundreds of years—indeed, thousands of years. We now know the path as Gage Roads, a deep trench off the shore of Western Australia, which our largest ships travel through out of port. It was the extension of the Swan River. During the Ice Age was the last time that it was seen. We need to capture that sort of history, and that is what has made Australia great. It is through adding diversity to that.
The issue that I have with having a constitutional monarchy is that that doesn't reflect Australia today. It doesn't even reflect the Australia that existed before colonisation. Australia has grown in different ways since that time, and all of those things should be celebrated. I am concerned that a constitutional monarchy does not reflect that.
I mentioned Sir Isaac Isaacs a little while ago, Australia's first Australian-born Governor-General. He was an outstanding person for that role and an outstanding leader. Indeed, before being appointed to that role, he was Chief Justice of Australia. He took a very significant pay cut to take up the role of Governor-General and lived that role in a frugal way, but as a representative of Australia. He was the first Governor-General to live full-time in Yarralumla. The people of Australia took it with such great pride and honour that there was a Governor-General actually resident in the Australian capital. The interesting thing about this is, firstly, that he was appointed by a great Australian Prime Minister. That great Australian Prime Minister was cut down because of world financial events and the way in which, again, the British aristocracy decided to dictate terms to Australia's finances.
Most importantly is the way in which that appointment came about. It was an appointment that was opposed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was an appointment that was opposed by the English government. It was an appointment that was opposed by George V. George V, in fact, did not want to take the advice—and I use that term legally—of the democratically elected government of Australia. But Scullin held firm. Prime Minister Scullin made it clear in a personal meeting—I tell you, I would love to know the transcript of that meeting—between George V and Prime Minister Scullion, and George V ceded. He ceded to the democratic sovereignty Australia to nominate and to advise the king as to who should hold the office of Governor-General of Australia. That was the turning point. That is a significant turning point that is not often reflected upon in Australian history or in this House. That was the first point, really, that an Australian Prime Minister literally stood up to an English king and told him how things were going to be in Australia.
It also highlights the problem that I started this contribution to the debate about. Why should an Australian Prime Minister have to travel to London to tell a king how Australia is going to be governed, how Australia wishes to have its affairs managed and who our head of state's representative—merely a representative—should be? No, it's rightfully time that Australia has its own head of state, Australian-born and Australian-selected. With that, of course, I support the bill. It's important that we support this bill for its passage before the end of the financial year and before the swearing in of the Honourable David Hurley AC, who I have absolutely no doubt will be another fine Governor-General for our nation. I merely hope that he's one of the last.
The bill before the House, the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill, goes to what seems to be a narrow administrative question, but it belies a much bigger question—a question about what it means to be Australian. The Governor-General Act was introduced by the Whitlam government to set the Governor-General's salary, and the Whitlam government believed that the Governor-General's salary should recognise the importance and place of this high office and be dealt with in a non-partisan way. It acknowledged that the appointment of the office of Governor-General should not depend on a candidate's personal wealth or their availability of other income to support them in the role.
It is ironic, then, that these egalitarian values do not extend to the nature of the office itself—a delegate of the Queen of the British monarchy, an institution where selection for the position is determined by birth. We have had a succession of esteemed Australians appointed as Governor-General, all of whom have carried out their duties with grace and honour. But in 2019 it is wholly outdated that Australia's head of state is the Queen and that her duties are delegated to the Governor-General in Australia. That's because today, 232 years after the First Fleet, 118 years after Federation, Australia's head of state does not represent us. It does not reflect us as a country.
It's not simply an anachronism. The institution of the British monarchy offends the very things that we are most proud of as Australians. It is utterly out of step with the values and expectations of modern Australia—values like the fair go, egalitarianism and mateship. The monarchy is an elitist and exclusive institution—there's just no way around this. Just say it: 'the Australian monarchy', 'the Queen of Australia'. If our constitutional arrangements remain unchanged, in the not-too-distant future we'll have a 'King of Australia'. Just feel those words in your mouth—it offends what it means to be Australian.
The monarchy is an institution that looks backwards to who someone's parents happen to be when determining whether someone is qualified to be our head of state—the governors-general representing them in Australia. It's an institution which excludes our First Australians. It's an institution that excludes the millions of Australians whose families, like my own, have come to this country from nations outside the British Empire. It is an institution that continues to discriminate in the line of succession on the basis of gender and religion.
Australia was built on the very idea that we can do better than the United Kingdom. And we have built something better here—a nation of radical egalitarianism; a country where, as historian George Nadel wrote:
… arrogance is the worst sin and deference the next. The Australian likes to call no man his master and likes to think of no man as his servant.
We certainly do not like to call any man or woman our king or queen.
When some misguided types sought to set up an antipodean aristocracy and a House of Lords in Australia in 1853, Daniel Deniehy, a son of convicts and a radical republican, scathingly labelled these Australians desiring of a British-style class system of a hierarchical system of honours as promoting a 'bunyip aristocracy'. We bestow mockery on those who think that they are better than anyone else, not titles—other than the member for Warringah, that is.
Order! The honourable member will withdraw that reflection.
Sorry?
If the honourable member was reflecting on the member for Warringah, he should not.
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I withdraw. I was trying to draw reference to the reinstitution of knights and dames under the Abbott government. I was not reflecting on the member for Warringah as an individual.
The honourable member may proceed. I thank him.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Over time we've slowly learnt how egalitarianism, the fair go and mateship should apply beyond the Anglo-Celtic men who championed these values for each other from the 1860s onwards to include women and people of colour who have also embraced these values and helped build the nation we enjoy today.
As historian Clare Wright has recorded, 'Australian women helped stoke the fires of rebellion at Eureka, and Australian suffragettes led the world in the fight for women's political empowerment.' Australian trailblazers like Muriel Matters, Vida Goldstein, Dora Meeson Coates and Dora Montefiorie taught the United Kingdom a thing or two about how a nation's democratic institutions, how its symbols, must give voice to everyone within the nation. Slowly, this realisation was also extended to people of colour. Australia has travelled an enormous distance since the days of terra nullius and the Immigration Restriction Act to become the most successful multicultural nation in the world. We are a nation of over 500 Indigenous nations, 250 ethnicities. Collectively we speak over 350 languages and worship 120 religions.
We are only now learning the stories of people of colour who have helped build the nation of radical egalitarianism we have become—people who are not reflected in the institution of the British monarchy, the Australian monarchy and their representative in Australia, the Governor-General. They include people like Chinese-Australian Billy Sing, a Queensland drover, a kangaroo hunter, a cane cutter, an opening fast bowler and one of our greatest Anzacs—the most successful sniper in the trenches of Gallipoli and a winner of the Distinguished Conduct Medal; other Chinese-Australians like Caleb James Shang, whose fearless service patrolling enemy territory, attacking enemy snipers and acting as runner under fire on the front lines of the Messian Ridge, Passchendaele and Dernancourt near the Somme, won him a DCM, a DCM with bar and a military medal, making him one of our most dedicated Anzacs; and John Wing, who, as a 10-year-old, embodied Australian egalitarianism by writing to the Melbourne Olympic committee to suggest that athletes march not as separate nations in the closing ceremony but as one nation of friends in the 1956 Olympics—an Australian contribution of egalitarianism that the Olympic Games has adopted and continued to this day.
Our national symbols and institutions need to reflect these radical egalitarian values that we have built in this country. These symbols and institutions matter; they aren't just administrative issues. Our national symbols matter to the sense of connection that Australians feel with other Australians, with their nation and with the government. It matters whether Australians feel like they share a common stake in the hopes and achievements of their fellow citizens and that we are all in the same boat in this endeavour.
We, on this side of the House, believe in the potential for what we can achieve together with the power of collective action. Too often, progressives on my side of politics have discounted the important role that a sense of unifying national identity can play as an enabler of this collective action. There is a growing body of literature in sociology and political science that shows the very damaging effects that countries experience when they don't have this binding form of national identity when tribal identities, ethnicities and religion are the dominant forms of identity in a society. Think of the things that we have built in this nation together through this sense of shared endeavour, not just the physical infrastructure like the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme but the social infrastructure that relies on these common bonds of trust and national identity to establish. Institutions like the Australian welfare state and Medicare—an institution, I might say, that is the great legacy of one of our former governor-generals, Bill Hayden. We need to invest more time in the cause of nation-building in Australia. We need to invest more in building symbols and institutions that unite us in mutual sympathies and in common endeavour.
Upon our Federation, our first Prime Minister, Edmond Barton, said 'we have a nation for a continent and a continent for a nation' but we're not defined by a geographical land mass. We define ourselves through the national culture, values and symbols we build together as a people. Our head of state ought to embrace this, ought to reflect these common values and ideals. National identity is politically constructed and it's up to all of us—MPs and citizens alike—to build it. We do this every day. Prime Minister John Howard once declared that he and his supporters 'knew what an Australian was and always will be'. That was a nation-building statement from John Howard. He had a view of what it meant to be Australian. He didn't think that it needed to change. Perhaps it was bestowed by Sir Henry Parkes to Charles Bean and handed on by Bradman to us today and it has been carved in stone and not changed since that time. You'll be unsurprised to hear that I think that is a nonsense.
The idea of what an Australian is has changed radically since Federation and is continuing to change today. At Federation, we did not have room in our conception of Australian identity for women, for Indigenous Australians or for people of colour. We denied them equal status in the law in our democracy, in our institutions and in our symbols. The ethnically and culturally diverse Australia of today is very different to the official white Australia of our Federation. Is there anyone among us who would say that this is not for the better, that the Australia of the start of the 21st century is not a far greater nation than the Australia of the start of the 20th century? Is there anyone among us who would not be proud of how far we have come as a country since the days of Edmund Barton? If we can recognise that our nation has changed, and changed for the better, then we should also recognise that the symbols and institutions of our nation have also become outdated as a result of these changes and should change as a consequence.
There's a chance that we're about to enter a new period of nation-building in Australia, a new period of nation-building that will impact directly on the roles of the Governor-General and the monarchy in Australia. If the federal Labor Party wins the next election, the next term of the parliament will see the implementation of an Indigenous voice to parliament, constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and a plebiscite on whether Australia should become a republic. We should not miss this opportunity. Properly seen, these processes are a chance to reflect on the way in which we think of ourselves as Australians. The British monarch, who our Governor-General represents, is no longer the single thread that unites us as a nation. The 'crimson thread' of the days of Henry Parkes is an irrelevancy to Australia today. At best, it is an irrelevancy; at worst, it's a symbol of our inability as a nation to recognise who we really are and who we have become. Our nation has been transformed by immigration, but our national identity has not evolved to reflect that demographic change. We need a truly representative national identity that would equally recognise the talents and experiences of members of the many Indigenous Australian peoples and our new diaspora communities.
As Noel Pearson powerfully argued in the 2018 Lowitja O'Donoghue Oration, Australia has a lot of symbolic nation-building to do: grappling with the legacy of 1788 from the perspectives of Indigenous Australians and European settlers, honestly dealing with our nation's fraught racial history through the White Australia policy, committing to land stewardship, making good on the Uluru Statement from the Heart and including a statement of Australian values. Pearson engaged with this symbolic nation-building in the form of a new 'Declaration of Australia', transcending and supplanting the outdated symbolism of our moment of sovereignty at Australia's Federation. Pearson began his proposed declaration with a statement:
Whereas three stories make Australia: the Ancient Indigenous Heritage which is its foundation, the British Institutions built upon it, and the adorning Gift of Multicultural Migration:
Pearson finished this declaration by saying, 'Three stories make us one: Australians.' It's a bold, confident vision of Australian exceptionalism that grapples with the often difficult path we have taken to become the nation that we are today. But it's a story that's not reflected in the office of the Governor-General or in the Australian monarchy. I believe this is a national conversation that's worth engaging with.
On the narrow substance of the bill before the House: I support it. The convention for settling the Governor-General's salary is uncontroversial. The amount references the expected salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court, whose remuneration is determined by an independent tribunal, and General David Hurley is of course deserving of this appointment as Governor-General and this salary. He is an outstanding Australian. Many members contributing to this debate have outlined the extraordinary work that he has done, particularly on organ donation, and I'm certain that he will comport himself with grace and honour in the role. For 42 years General Hurley served in the Australian Army and concluded his service as Chief of the Defence Force before being appointed Governor of New South Wales in 2014. Nothing in this debate detracts in any way from his status as an outstanding Australian.
But we need a new way of choosing the next David Hurley. We can do better as a nation. And we should do better, because these symbols and institutions matter. They matter to the way that we see ourselves, they matter to the way that we engage with our fellow Australians, and they matter to the way that people beyond our borders see and engage with us. I believe that we can do better and I hope that, if Labor wins the next election, we get the opportunity to do this symbolic nation-building, to set a new foundation for Australia to confidently move forward in the 21st century as an exceptional nation—modern, diverse and reflecting all of the potential that we know this nation has.
I'd like to thank the members who have participated in this debate for this simple amendment. But, as I heard from the Minister for Health, why say in one minute what you can say in 15? I'm glad the contributions from some of those on the opposite side didn't stray into the area where I would have to call them on standing order 88 in regard to diminishing the role of both the Governor-General and the Queen, or the monarchy, but I must admit they did sail a bit close to the wind. But they opened the door, saying that this particular monarchy is still very important to many Australians.
I attended a recent RSL event where I laid a wreath for the Vietnam veterans. Veterans were very proud and loud when they sang 'God Save The Queen' at their particular ceremony. These are people who actually fought and put their lives on the line for Australia. Many Australians haven't done that and probably don't recognise the importance of these guys and how they respect the monarchy.
The purpose of this bill is to set an annual salary of $495,000 during the term of the appointment of His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley AC DSC (Retired) as Governor-General. General Hurley is a former Chief of the Defence Force and has been a very popular Governor of New South Wales. General Hurley is known for being generous and approachable to old and young alike, as seen in his weekly boxing workouts with Indigenous children as part of the Tribal Warrior program or during his frequent regional trips. He has dedicated his life to serving the Australian community. General Hurley's compassion and commitment to Australia was displayed during his 42 years in the Australian Army, for which he was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for eminent service to the Australian Defence Force, and in his leadership and service during Operation Solace in Somalia in 1993, for which he received the Distinguished Service Cross.
Under section 3 of the Constitution, the salary of the Governor-General cannot be altered during the term of an appointment. This means that alteration to the Governor-General's salary must occur prior to the commencement of a new Governor-General's term. It has been a longstanding practice that the Governor-General's salary is calculated with reference to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The proposed salary has therefore been determined through forecasting the projected wage growth of the Chief Justice's salary over the next five years. The Governor-General designate has requested that his salary take into consideration his Commonwealth funded superannuation from his previous service in the Australian Defence Force. This is in line with precedent established by His Excellency Sir William Deane in 1995 and continued most recently by General Cosgrove in 2014, both of whom were entitled to Commonwealth funded pensions through their previous work. The proposed salary for General Hurley as Governor-General has therefore been calculated in relation to the Chief Justice's salary, taking into account General Hurley's military pension.
I'd just like to finish by congratulating Governor-General Cosgrove on his work for the Australian community and the office of Governor-General. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I rise today to speak on the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019 and the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019. These bills end a hard-fought campaign for recognition of the service rendered by the Australian civilian surgical and medical teams as part of Australia's contribution to the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization aid program in South Vietnam between 1964 and 1972.
This campaign has been run by a variety of ex-service organisations, but I predominantly give recognition to the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, along with the Australian civilian medical and surgical teams and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. These groups have been advocating for recognition for 20 years, seeking greater assistance for the individuals in the teams affected. I would like to congratulate all those tireless advocates who have fought long and hard. It is because of your hard work that the government has finally listened to these calls and is extending health coverage for those who served.
Approximately 240 doctors, 210 nurses and a small number of technical and administrative staff went to Vietnam to provide general surgical and medical services for the South Vietnamese population, to teach—mainly by example—new surgical techniques and procedures, and to establish goodwill and trust as part of the Australian civilian surgical and medical team group. Twenty-two teams were sent over from more than 13 Australian metropolitan hospitals to work in South Vietnam's provincial hospitals. The first team, with staff from the Royal Melbourne Hospital, arrived in October 1964 and was stationed at Long Xuyen in the Mekong Delta. The Australian teams developed a close working relationship with the local hospitals which lasted for some years.
Dot Angell, a nurse and a staunch advocate for recognition of civilian nurses, served at Bien Hoa Provincial Hospital from December 1966 to March 1967. She described herself as a 'free-spirited 20-something, headed for an adventure', when detailing her experience to the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. The nurses and doctors worked day and night to treat patients, with some of the teams working in dangerous proximity to the fighting.
The SEATO teams were required to attend not only attend to Vietnamese citizens but also South Vietnamese local forces and wounded Vietcong and NVA troops. Dot recalled working around the clock to treat many patients caught in the crossfire of war, noting:
We treated anybody who came through the gates at the hospital, whether they were friend or foe. We were dealing with war injuries. We were dealing with traffic accidents because Bien Hoa was a refugee town and packed to capacity. We also dealt with illnesses, some of which we had never seen before, such as plague, typhoid, and cholera.
Another nurse, Janet Glasson, recalled in an interview with The Sydney Morning Herald her time in a ramshackle hospital in the province. She was 24 and could remember vividly the night the Vietcong Tet Offensive started. She was due to clock off from her shift when a surge of wounded people came flooding through the door. She said:
It was horrendous. They arrived however they could, in bus-loads or in rickshaws. You just worked as long as you were able, trying to help. Some of the wounds were terrible, but it was surprising how few we lost. It was all so heartbreaking. Especially with the orphans who came in.
In her time at the hospital, she and her fellow nurses would work in shifts as long as 32 hours straight, not just looking after patients but also preparing to defend the hospital and its patients if they came under attack. Their hospital had no base close by and, as such, the civilian surgical and medical teams had been issued with weapons and trained how to use them.
Speaking of her time at the hospital, Glasson commented on the sheer numbers of patients they had, with often two or three sharing a bed and others lying on the floors, with temporary emergency rooms set up for the overflow. In addition, they would experience blackouts, which would leave them holding torches for surgeons as they operated. Said Glasson:
But, at the time, you just got on with it. You didn't have time to think or process what was happening. You are there to do your job, to help people, and that's what you do.
These nurses and doctors performed invaluable service to our country and to those they helped in Vietnam. For many, they returned home, returned to their lives and continued working as they had before. However, the experiences and the trauma they had witnessed stayed with many. It was decades later that Dot Angel, while undertaking a PhD, interviewed a handful of civilian nurses who had also served in Vietnam and realised that many of them were experiencing similar issues to veterans who had served in Vietnam. These included post-traumatic stress and other anxiety disorders, autoimmune disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, cancers and other immune system disorders.
However, because they were employed by the Department of External Affairs it was argued that these individuals should receive compensation and treatment for their medical related injuries due to their employment through the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, administered by Comcare. While they've been able to access treatment through this model, advocates have argued that this scheme is not as comprehensive as the scheme available to veterans, particularly in relation to mental health conditions. Consequently, advocates have been fighting for 50 years for the circumstances of these nurses, doctors and civilians to be recognised.
Over this time, there have been a number of reviews. In 1999 the review of service entitlement abnormalities by Justice Robert Mohr made a recommendation that the Australian civilian surgical team service should be deemed as performing qualifying service for repatriation benefits. This was the only recommendation that the government of the time did not implement from the report. In 2003, the Clarke review concluded that the civilian surgical medical teams were part of the civilian aid efforts in South Vietnam, not the military effort, and, as such, recommended against the extension of VEA coverage to members of their teams.
The crux of the issue around extending full health coverage to these teams has come down to the manner of their employment in Vietnam, and not their duties. As they were civilians employed through the Department of External Affairs they were covered by Comcare for any health concerns; civilians were not generally covered under the veterans' legislation. However, advocates have argued convincingly that there have been occasions where the government has extended coverage to civilians. For example, the Australian Red Cross and Salvation Army did get coverage when they were deemed to be attached to the ADF. As such, advocates have continued to persecute the case that these teams were integrated with the ADF and performed like functions, as suggested by Justice Mohr in the 1999 review.
The Vietnam Veterans Association has been making representations to the government over the past two decades, arguing that the civilian surgical medical teams dealt with the harsh realities of life in a war zone without any adequate training and, at times, without adequate protection. They tended to the Vietnamese civilian and military sick and wounded in overcrowded and underresourced hospitals, often in life-threatening situations and sometimes at the end of a rifle barrel. They learned to handle US military weapons in order to protect themselves and they were subject to enemy mortar attacks.
I think we can understand from these firsthand accounts that it's clear the civilian nursing and surgical teams performed duties that were well beyond what civilians would be required to do. Indeed, there was no real differentiation between those who were nurses and doctors in uniform versus those who were part of the civilian surgical teams. Therefore, there is a very strong argument for these individuals to be given special recognition. So I'm pleased that we're here today to help bring into effect this legislation, which finally acknowledges the role that these individuals performed and the impact it had on their lives and their health.
This change was originally proposed by the government on 16 December, with a start date some 18 months later, on 1 July 2020. This arbitrary date drew justifiable criticism from the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, Dot Angell and other advocates in the ex-service community, who do not want to see this individual wait any longer to receive the health care they're entitled to. Dot said that the delay was 'unacceptable' and that civilian nurses would continue to fight 'until justice is done'. Speaking to the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Journal, Dot worried that, if the bill is delayed 18 months, it is likely that a third to 50 per cent of the remaining nurses would no longer be alive. These doctors and nurses have waited long enough. There is absolutely no reason to delay the implementation any longer. I am pleased that the government have realised their mistake and have brought this date forward.
Of course, Labor is acutely aware of how few sitting days we have before the middle of the year, due to the incredibly light sitting schedule proposed by the government. Seeing that the Senate is sitting only two days before May, it is important that we expedite this bill. Given the importance of the bill, Labor will do what we can to try to assist the government to pass this legislation in the time we have available.
This bill is modelled on the provision of treatment available to persons eligible under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006. As such, many of the provisions are based on and similar to provisions in that act, including the review process and the enforcement of obtaining and giving information. The companion bill, the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019, will give effect to the government's decision to provide medical treatment for members of the civilian medical teams. These consequential amendments are necessary to enable effective operation of the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019.
Labor welcomes the expansion of the gold card to this group of brave men and women who provided invaluable service in Vietnam. While we offer our bipartisan support to this legislation, it does raise questions in light of the fact that the recent Productivity Commission review of DVA did state that the gold card should not be expanded to any new categories of veterans or dependents. It is rightful that the government is clearly rejecting this recommendation. But, while rejecting this recommendation, they should also reject the recommendation that dismantles the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The commission's review has recommended that the department be dismantled, with a statutory authority established to handle claims and their policy responsibilities going into a division within Defence.
To date, the government have not given any indication of whether or not they'll adopt that recommendation. However, by rejecting the gold card recommendation as part of this legislation, the government have shown that they will not wait for the final report to rule out recommendations. I urge them not to hide behind the draft Productivity Commission report any longer when it comes to dismantling the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and I urge them to join with Labor and reject the dismantling of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. If they're listening to the same wide group of veterans that I'm listening to, the message is very clear: veterans do not support the abolition of a standalone department; they want a department that will look after them. And veterans want the comfort of knowing where the government stands; they don't want to wait until after an election to find out what the government's position is.
In closing, I'd like to reiterate Labor's support for the expansion of the gold card to members of the Australian civilian surgical and medical teams. These individuals volunteered their time and their skill to look after the South Vietnamese population. They were subject to many of the dangers and the traumas experienced by others who served in Vietnam. They continue to suffer as a result of volunteering their service. While the teams were awarded with the Australian Active Service Medal, this bill will finally recognise the injury and risk to their health and lives that travelling to Vietnam had caused.
To the advocates who have fought for this recognition: congratulations. It is your work that is why the parliament is listening today and acting. And, to all those civilian nurses and surgical teams who went to Vietnam: thank you for the sacrifices you made. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the following bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration:
Treatment Benefits (Special Access) 2019; and
Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) 2019.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019. When we think of the South Pacific, we often think of islands, beautiful tropical islands, a place where many Australians choose to take a holiday. But, as the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, has astutely said on more than one occasion, we need to shift our thinking about the Pacific from thinking about it as a place of beautiful tropical islands and small island states to one which is an ocean continent—countries that occupy a blue ocean continent. She also has suggested to us that we should change our thinking from describing the Pacific as our backyard to thinking more about this ocean continent as our front yard.
It's a part of the world that has lots of challenges, particularly from the effects of climate change but also challenges that relate to lack of infrastructure as well as real and chronic health challenges and education challenges. I think—in fact, I know—that all of us in this chamber, on both sides of the parliament, agree that this is a part of the world where we, Australia, have a very special responsibility to work with and to partner—and that's an important word: partner—with our friends and our neighbours in the Pacific to help them to meet those challenges.
This legislation that we're discussing this morning deals specifically with that infrastructure challenge that countries in the Pacific face. The Asia Development Bank released a report—I think it was in 2017; it was released just in the last few years—talking about the infrastructure challenges right across the Indo-Pacific, right across Asia and the Pacific. When you look as far as the Indo-Pacific, you see a challenge which is in the order of $26 trillion in infrastructure that needs to be built across the Asia-Pacific over the course of the next 10 or so years—that's enormous. But, specifically to the Pacific, what this report showed is that the highest relative level of investment in infrastructure required, both in per capita terms and also as a percentage of GDP, is required in the Pacific. Of all the regions in which the Asia Development Bank has operations, it identified the Pacific as being the one that had the highest relative need in terms of investment in infrastructure in per capita and in percentage of GDP terms. I'm quoting directly from a report written by a journalist called Sanjivi Rajasingham in April 2017. He makes this point, and this provides context for the importance of this conversation:
Pacific island countries face unique and broad challenges. Their remoteness and generally small populations preclude them from benefiting from economies of scale in investments, and services are often more costly to produce and maintain. In addition, Pacific island countries are highly vulnerable to natural disasters. Cyclone Winston which hit Fiji last year resulted in total damage estimated to be over 30% of GDP.
Addressing the region's infrastructure needs requires innovative solutions, better planning, and the combined efforts of the global development community to bring the Pacific's infrastructure to a point where it can support higher levels of sustainable growth.
He goes on to make the point that the Asia Development Bank works with countries like ours but also with the EU, with the European Investment Bank, with Japan's International Cooperation Agency, with New Zealand as well as with the World Bank to deliver and coordinate assistance and relevant research through a technical assistance program managed by the Asia Development Bank. It's called the Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility, or the PRIF. He makes the point that:
ADB plans to roughly double its financial commitments in the region, with an emphasis on infrastructure and its regional partners are also gearing up their assistance.
It's very timely given what this legislation is all about.
He also makes the point that there are priority areas where urgent assistance is needed and where the Asia Development Bank at the moment, as well as countries like Australia, are working to help. One is household access to electricity. Right across the Pacific, access to electricity is at about 30 per cent:
… but more grid connections is not always the right answer (in fact access in urban areas is relatively high and comparable to the OECD). The challenge is to bring coverage to rural areas and the outer islands, including through off-grid electricity, powered by locally abundant (and renewable) sources like solar and wind. The approaches must be sustainable, so their implementation needs to factor in processes (such as performance based contracts) and budgets for maintenance.
He says:
The report notes how building a road in the Pacific can cost four times as much as elsewhere. We need innovative solutions to reduce the cost of providing connectivity to a part of the world that needs it more than most. One innovation to reduce this cost is implementing new pavement design techniques for low volume roads, using locally available materials.
The third example he gives is marine transport, which is critical to all Pacific island countries:
… but port construction and maintenance are very expensive. In Nauru, ADB is seeking cofinancing for an ambitious project to modernize the country's only port, and JICA—
which I mentioned earlier is the vehicle used by the Japanese government—
has been active in upgrading ports in Kiribati and Samoa. Inter-island (local) transport is crucial to populations living on outer islands, but it is constrained by inadequate and unsafe jetties and wharves. We need to encourage the private sector to play a bigger role in providing inter-island shipping and transport through public-private partnerships.
In his fourth example he says:
There are over 700 airports and airstrips in the Pacific, but only about 7% are paved. Several aviation projects by PRIF partners are underway to improve the quality and safety of air transport facilities, for example in Samoa and on the island of Kirimati (in Kiribati), and many of them are working to strengthen the regional aviation authority. Maintenance is again essential.
He also says:
There is a marked disparity between urban and rural areas in access to water services, which are generally not continuously available. In some atolls, groundwater is a limited resource that cannot keep up with growing populations. It's time to prioritize investments in water transmission, minimize leakage, and maximize rainwater harvesting.
Another area is a lack of sanitation. He says:
Lack of sanitation is an even bigger problem in rural areas, where coverage is significantly lower than water. Land use constraints exacerbate this situation. There have been advances in cost effective sanitation techniques that have been identified which need to be more systematically built into development projects.
Last, but not least, he makes the point that this report by the Asian Development Bank:
… stresses the urgency of addressing climate change. This is crucial for the Pacific, home to 8 of the world's 20 most vulnerable countries (ranked by average annual disaster losses as a percentage of GDP). PRIF is researching approaches for affordable coastal protection, and has identified an approach which uses stacked concrete blocks which is more robust and provides protection against higher waves.
The point I'm making, and the point that is made in this article in the report that was prepared by the Asian Development Bank, is that the Pacific's infrastructure gap is large but we can close it through innovative and coordinated assistance and through the work of countries—like Australia, like New Zealand, like the United States, like the EU and like Japan—working together with the World Bank and working together with organisations like the Asian Development Bank. If we do that, we can make a significant difference to a part of the world that needs it most and a part of the world that, as I said, we have a special responsibility to assist, to help and to partner with.
That's why, in October of last year, Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, announced in a major speech that he made at the Lowy Institute that a future Labor government would actively facilitate concessional loans to privatise investments in things like financing investment in vital, nation-building infrastructure in the Pacific, through what he called, at the time, a 'government-backed infrastructure investment bank'. As the Leader of the Opposition said in that speech at the Lowy Institute:
Our neighbours in the Pacific are looking for partners to help them build infrastructure …
It's Labor's intention to make sure that they look to Australia first. He said:
My vision is for Australia to actively facilitate concessional loans and financing for investment in these vital, nation-building projects through a government-backed infrastructure investment bank.
Our neighbours in the Pacific are looking for partners to help them build infrastructure – and as Prime Minister, I intend to make sure they look to Australia first.
I see this financing facility as a way Australia can elevate our status as a 'partner-of-choice' for Pacific development and enhance security and prosperity in the region.
A month after Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, made that speech, the Prime Minister of Australia made a speech himself in Townsville, where he announced that the government would do something quite similar. He announced two things: the first thing he announced was a $2 billion Australian infrastructure financing facility for the Pacific, and the second thing he announced was an extra $1 billion in funding for Efic to finance infrastructure investments in the Pacific.
The Prime Minister said in that speech in Townsville:
So today I'm pleased to announce two major new initiatives that will help address the infrastructure needs of the Pacific region.
The first is the creation of an Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific (AIFFP).
This $2 billion infrastructure initiative will significantly boost Australia's support for infrastructure development in Pacific countries and Timor Leste.
It will use grant funding combined with long term loans to support high priority infrastructure development.
This will also enable these projects to leverage broader support. It will invest in essential infrastructure such as telecommunications, energy, transport, water and will stretch our aid dollars even further. The second major announcement I’m making today—
Again, I'm quoting the Prime Minister here.
is the Government will ask Parliament to give Efic, Australia's export financing agency, an extra $1 billion in callable capital and a new more flexible infrastructure financing power to support investments in the region which have broad national benefit for Australia. It's in our interest that's why we need to do it.
I'm continuing to quote the Prime Minister.
These new measures will enhance Efic's ability to support Australian SMEs to be active in their region. Working with the support and aid that we are putting into the region. Private capital, entrepreneurialism, open markets are crucial to our mutual prosperity. These are our beliefs, these are values, they are shared with the Pacific and we stand with those who share our beliefs and values.
It's my genuine ambition for this work on infrastructure to be a bipartisan endeavour, as indeed should our wider engagement be in the Pacific.
That point that the Prime Minister makes about bipartisanship is an important one because this is an endeavour which is shared by members on both sides of this House, as evidenced by the fact that the opposition leader has made a similar announcement and a similar commitment in the speech that I just referred to at the Lowy Institute in October last year—specifically, to create an infrastructure investment bank for the Pacific.
The legislation that we're debating here now implements the second of the Prime Minister's announcements on that day in November in Townsville. It gives Efic the extra $1 billion in callable capital on its commercial account that the Prime Minister talked about, in the remarks I just quoted, to fund infrastructure investments in the Pacific. And the reason for that is set out in the explanatory memorandum, which says:
This will allow Efic to provide more commercially meaningful financing offers, including for overseas infrastructure projects where the total size of debt financing required is large. It will give Efic greater flexibility and credibility with project proponents, sovereign borrowers and financing partners, who require the confidence that Efic's support is meaningful and can be sustained over often long repayment terms.
So that sets out there why we're doing this, why the legislation has been put in place in this form. As structured, what this will allow is for funding to be provided by Efic not only to individual countries but also individual companies, and for financing to be provided at a commercial rate. Currently, EFIC can only fund projects on its commercial account where it is helping to maximise Australian export opportunities with defined Australian content and Australian job-creation thresholds. This legislation would change that.
As part of this bill, a new definition and Australian benefits test would apply to loans provided by Efic. This will mean that an infrastructure project funded by Efic must have a benefit to Australia or a person carrying business or other activities in Australia. The minister, in his second reading speech where he introduced this legislation, talked about the possibility for Efic to fund a broadband internet project in the Pacific, the benefit for Australia being that it would lower the cost for Australians of doing business in the region.
It's worth just mentioning a little bit more detail about this. The explanatory memorandum talks about how creating this Australian benefit test for infrastructure will open up a larger pool of potential projects for Efic funding. The EM says that it will enable 'Efic to take account of the direct benefits from the involvement of Australian companies in infrastructure projects, as well as future and indirect benefits for Australia or Australians, such as greater Australian participation in supply chains, access to new markets for Australian businesses, more Australian jobs, payments, dividends or other financial proceeds from overseas to Australia, or stronger relationships with our regional partners, especially in the Pacific'. Doing this, the amendment will enhance the government's ability to play a constructive role in regional infrastructure that serves our national interest and supports Australian businesses to take on international opportunities. In terms of the financial impact of this legislation, the EM says:
The Bill will have no impact on the Commonwealth’s underlying cash balance. The increase in Efic’s callable capital will enable Efic to provide more financing over time, raising the Government’s contingent liability for Efic within the established upper limit of $6.5 billion. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Regulations 2018 set this maximum liability.
One more thing specifically on this legislation is that it also changes the name of Efic. It changes the trading name of Efic to Export Finance Australia. The argument put for that in the explanatory memorandum says:
A simpler trading name that references Australia will provide greater recognition for Efic and the Australian Government, both with Australian small and medium sized enterprises and exporters, and in overseas markets.
I think that there is a certain logic to that. On that basis, the opposition will support this legislation in this place.
The government and the opposition have agreed to refer this bill to a Senate inquiry. The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee will look at the legislation in some detail and take evidence from interested parties, and it was determined in the Senate last week that the committee will report back to the parliament on 26 March 2019. Amongst other things, I expect that this inquiry will have a look at how this bill will interact with the Prime Minister's first announcement that he made in Townsville, the establishment of the Australian Infrastructure Finance Facility for the Pacific. It will also be an opportunity to examine whether providing this additional funding to Efic and broadening its scope is the best way to achieve the policy objectives that we all share to help build the infrastructure that our friends in the Pacific need, or whether there might be another way to do that.
For example, the United States last year passed what they called the BUILD Act, which created the United States International Development Finance Corporation. What that corporation does is facilitate the participation of private sector capital and skills in the economic development of countries with low- or middle-income economies and countries transitioning from non-market to market economies in order to complement the United States' assistance and foreign policy objectives. As I said, the United States has been doing this sort of thing for some time, but this is a new way of doing it. This is new legislation recently passed by the United States which is worthy of examination by this committee in looking at how we can best do this work.
The BUILD Act sets out that the US International Development Finance Corporation can make loans or loan guarantees; as a minority investor, acquire equity or financial interests in entities; provide insurance or reinsurance to private sector entities and qualifying sovereign entities; provide technical assistance; administer special projects; establish enterprise funds; issue obligations; and also charge service fees. It cannot, however, provide assistance to a country whose government has repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism, or to a private sector entity that is engaged in monopolistic practices. The corporation can invest, along with the private sector, in low- and middle-income countries, as well as upper-middle-income countries where there is either a national security or a development reason to do so.
The corporation will double the United States' investment portfolio for development finance to US$60 billion. It'll also provide project-level data publicly to ensure trust and transparency in the process. Importantly, there will also be grant windows to conduct feasibility studies to potentially unlock subsequent development finance decisions. In addition to providing equity investments, the corporation provides technical assistance and increases the ability to assist developing countries through local currency loans as well as small grants.
While the corporation has a triple mandate of development, commercial viability and national security, it's a model which is worthy of this parliament looking at quite closely. That's why I have made the point that through the development of this legislation, as well as through the examination of the Senate committee, we should look quite closely at the model that has been developed by our friends in the United States.
The US is not alone on this front. The UK have long done something similar as well. They've created an organisation called the CDC Group, which was previously called the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and before that the Colonial Development Corporation. It's a publicly limited company where the sole shareholder is the Department for International Development and it invests principally in Asia and Africa. Its stated purpose is:
… to invest in the creation and growth of viable private businesses in poorer developing countries to contribute to economic growth for the benefit of the poor; and to mobilise private investment in these markets both directly and by demonstrating profitable investments as part of the mission of the DFID to fight world poverty.
More succinctly, Richard Lange has said that the CDC exists to improve people's lives in developing countries.
The CDC is the UK government's principal vehicle for directly helping the private sector in developing countries. It's prohibited by statute from supporting public sector projects, such as schools and hospitals, although it can invest in public utilities and support privatisation programs. The countries it is permitted to invest in and the geographical balance of its investments between them is restricted by an investment policy agreed by the DFID.
For the CDC's investments to add value, it is seen as important that they meet two criteria. Specifically, the investment should be additional; that is, the investment supports business in areas that other investors are reluctant to invest in because of associated risks or economies that are underserved by commercial financial institutions. Secondly, the investment must be catalytic; that is, through demonstrating profitable and responsible investments in difficult and neglected environments it encourages further investment from elsewhere—in short, mobilising other people's money.
Between 2004 and 2011, the CDC was structured as a fund of funds; that is, rather than make direct investments itself it invested through external private equity companies, known as fund managers. Such investments are generally held for about four to eight years, and when the fund manager sells the investment it returns the capital and any profit to the CDC. So those are two examples of countries that do this slightly differently to the way we are proposing to do it here.
But it's not just the United States or the United Kingdom; I think it's correct to say that all G7 countries have facilities or funds like this that do similar things. The question before us is: what's the best way to do it? I think that this is a worthy proposition by the government, which is why we're supporting it here in this place and why we think we should do more work in the intervening period between now and when the Senate will next sit in April to look at the best way to do this and to make sure that as we do this there are no unintended consequences.
Finally, in wrapping up, can I take this opportunity to again stress our commitment to working with our friends and neighbours in the Pacific, to help make sure that we build the infrastructure that they need. Can I also recognise and pay tribute to two people on our side of the place who are well known in this building for their longstanding commitment to and advocacy on behalf of the people of the Pacific. They are, of course, the shadow minister for defence, Richard Marles, and the shadow minister for international development and the Pacific, Senator Claire Moore. They too, amongst others on the other side of the House, stand out as individuals who have a better understanding of the Pacific and its needs, and an enormous desire to do good. We should recognise their contribution in this debate.
I look forward to seeing the recommendations that might come out of the Senate inquiry, which I have touched on, and hope that the work that we do here through this legislation and any amendments that may arise out of that inquiry help to make sure that we, as a country, Australia, can do more to help to build a stronger and a better future for our friends and neighbours in the Pacific.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
The opposition will be opposing the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018, and we will be doing so for a number of reasons. It is of course not because we don't want to help drought-affected farmers—just the opposite. It's not because we don't support the ideals outlined in the bill—we do. We oppose it because we believe there is a better path.
Before I go there, I want to make a few comments by way of background to the matters that we're dealing with today. Strong rural economies need a strong agriculture sector. Our food and fibre sectors are in desperate need of the capital required to drive scale and build the on-farm infrastructure needed to lift productivity and build resilience and diversity. There are, of course, only two real sources of investment for this project: domestic and foreign. On the latter, the current government could not have done more over the course of the last five years to discourage capital inflows; in particular, those coming from our north. A Labor government will not play to the crowd on foreign investment. It's far too important to be the subject of populist policies.
On the domestic investment front, people often and understandably lament the fact that our superannuation fund managers don't pay sufficient attention to opportunities in the agriculture sector. I always return to the very sobering words of super fund industry expert Garry Weaven, who told the ABC last year: 'The returns are quite low in relation to the risks and volatility of the investment.' His are words that every one of us in this place and everyone who has an interest in the agriculture sector should deeply reflect on and return to on a regular basis. We in this place, of course, think agriculture is special, and it is. It is the sector that feeds us, the sector that puts clothes on our back and the sector that makes a significant contribution to global food security. But in the eyes of investors there is nothing special about the agriculture sector. If they can see higher returns in another asset class, that's where their investment will go. Their fiduciary responsibility is to maximise the returns of those paying into their superannuation accounts. While they are obviously part of the equation, the success of the agriculture sector is not measured only by the volume of products produced, the prices secured or the numbers exported. No, the numbers that really matter to those fund managers are profit and return on investment over time. That is the bottom line for investors. Fogging up their reading glasses are two really key concerns: perception and risk. While there are exceptions to the rule, when farming is in our news stories, sadly, it's usually there for all the wrong reasons. Making it worse, too often politicians are too quick to run to the cameras to reinforce the negative message. I regret all of that. None of it encourages investment in the agriculture sector.
On the risk front, investors baulk at at least seven things: (1) the vagaries of the export markets and our heavy exposure to them; (2) growing global competition in our key export markets; (3) commodity price falls over time in real terms; (4) increasing foreign investment hurdles; (5) the constant presence of agripolitics and the ever-present fear of irrational government intervention; (6) the uncontrollable and unpredictable influence of weather events, climate change and the sector's dependence on natural rainfall; and (7) rising community concern about the treatment of animals and the health of Australia's natural environment. That's a lot of concern for us to collectively overcome if we are to meet our aspirations for the agriculture sector. We have a really big task ahead of us as we strive to capitalise on that rising global demand for the high-quality, clean, green and safe products that we produce as a country. I want to work with the sector to overcome those barriers to investment.
Government certainly has a key role to play in capitalising on those opportunities. No one farm, business or group of farm businesses can hope to secure access to export markets on fair terms. That's the work of government, and it will be a priority for a Labor government if elected. Farmers alone can't protect our products from pests and disease or guard our reputation and brand. That's primarily the role of government, as is ensuring our farmers have timely access to the chemicals and animal medicines they need and our customers trust.
We can't fulfil all of our aspirations if we don't have the world's best research. The need to aggregate investment and the challenges of spillover demand govern involvement and leadership from government. I am energised by the prospect of having the opportunity after the next election, if we are so fortunate, to ensure that our research dollars are spent in the most effective way and in a way that returns the best investment for levy payers and taxpayers alike. Dollars are too scarce in this area to waste one cent.
The majority of our farm entities are small and lack market power. Government has a key role to play in ensuring that they are not subject to market power abuse. Trade practices law has always been an area of interest to me, and I'll stand with our farmers to defend against the abuse of market power. Trade-exposed industries can only compete if governments keep costs down. Cost of energy is a key issue for agribusiness, and we will strive to put in place an energy policy that restores investment certainty and puts downward pressure on energy prices.
Government has a key role to play in the management, health and efficient allocation of our water and soil resources. This an area that has been largely vacated by the current government, although it has shown a key interest in the water. I note that the member for New England has joined us. When I say 'key interest', I say it for all the wrong reasons.
There's one further big task we need to tackle together. We've all become very familiar with the term 'disruption'. When talk about disruption, more often than not, we talk about technology and the way it's changed business and changed our lives. Most immediately, we think of Airbnb, Uber and social media and all the things that come with them. But in my view, the two other significant forms of disruption—particularly as they apply to the agriculture sector—are a changing climate and changing community attitudes. We should see the latter not just as a challenge—and it is a challenge—but as an opportunity. We need to harness changing community attitudes and food preferences to turn them to our advantage, and we can.
Let us be in no doubt: consumer preferences will continue to evolve. More and more, they will want us our producers to respect the welfare of animals and they will want our product produced in a sustainable and ethical way. They are also growing more health conscious as each day goes by. They face a wave of advice on a daily basis about what they should and shouldn't be eating, and they're listening to that advice. They're listening here in Australia, and they're listening in our key export markets. In fact, in some of our key export markets, the change is more rapid than it is here. I have also noted the claim that Australia is the third fastest growing vegan market in the world, behind China and the United Arab Emirates. That is amazing. I think that would surprise most people.
But let me share two quick anecdotes. Three years ago, I released Labor's animal welfare plan during the 2016 election. It was, I would argue with great confidence, a sensible and measured document. The industry opposed it. But, following further controversy, it now supports it. Eight months ago, following a very bad incident in the live trade sector, I came to the conclusion that the live sheep export sector was unsustainable and posed a very real threat both to Australia's reputation in international markets and, indeed, to other markets, including the live cattle sector, because I feared it would infect that much larger sector. The live sheep sector initially argued that the Awassi Express incident was just an isolated incident—a one-off—that there was nothing really to be seen here and that everything was okay. Eight months on, the industry has voluntarily suspended the live sheep trade and is now embracing regulation imposed by the minister sitting opposite that is heavier than anyone could ever have expected—regulation they would never have countenanced before this series of incidents. In both cases, the sector opposed change, only to be forced to embrace change. But, in the meantime, in the interim, the sector did itself more reputational damage. This is pointless.
Attacking and demonising those who raise environmental or animal welfare concerns while defending the status quo, no matter what it looks like, has proven itself to be a failed strategy. We have to accept that the status quo does not always look good or meet consumer expectations and that, as a result, we risk losing the initiative. There is, I will argue, a better course, and politicians and industry leaders must work together to chart that better course. Together, we need to anticipate change and work with those in the sector who are not moving sufficiently quickly to accommodate growing opposition to outdated practices. We need to swim with the rising tide and surf the currents of activism to a more sustainably profitable place, just as the meat sector has done by pledging to be carbon neutral by 2030. They're on the front foot, anticipating the change and leading the way. They're not waiting for government to regulate them. They're not waiting for the tide to take them out. They are surfing the wave to something that is to their own advantage.
Putting the barricades up, screaming at the sometimes very legitimate concerns—and there'll always be those radicals on the far left who need to be dismissed—and getting into a shouting competition with the mainstream, which is a rising, growing, large stream, is a recipe for failure. We all need to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Governments will be more willing to invest in those who are falling behind and who need a partner if they know they can be confident that the policy approach enjoys public support. Of course, this approach will produce good outcomes for the broader economy because it will lift productivity and increase the value we secure for the allocation of our human capital and our financial and human resources. Yes, as I said, there will be those on the extreme left with multiple agendas, but if we, the sensibles in the middle, stand together we can deal with them. But to win outright and to maintain the trust of the growing majority who are listening to the debate on a daily basis, we need runs on the board. We need to build political capital. We need to build the social licence. We need to demonstrate that we are moving. And we need to be able to point to the things industry has already achieved or is on track to achieve.
We don't talk about our environmental and animal welfare achievements regularly enough, loudly enough or convincingly enough. Our natural resource base is in decline; that is just a statement of fact. So too is the statement that our ecosystems are under enormous stress—enormous stress! Agricultural policy should begin and end with a focus on our natural environment, which is also—next to technology—the most likely place to secure productivity gains and to produce the best defence to drought.
That takes me to the bill before us. Drought and climate change will be the great challenges of our time. There will be those still who want to have an argument about what's causing it and whether it's only around for a short time or a long time. They'll argue that it's been happening forever. That's fine; they can argue that. But it's an incontestable fact that the climate is changing and it's changing considerably. The overwhelming majority of scientists are saying it will get worse and we need to act to retarget our contribution to the change.
Drought should no longer be considered an exceptional event. Drought is, when you think about it, a subjective term. How dry or hot does it have to be and for how long for a weather event to constitute a drought? The fact is, on one measure, we'll probably always be in drought. Someone will say, 'Oh, well, it's flooding in Queensland.' Yes, but I've heard of at least one landholder in north-west Queensland who has a large property that's in drought at one end and in flood at the other. Drought is not the only consequence of the way the climate is changing. The climate is changing in erratic ways.
The bill proposes to establish the future drought fund. How does it do that? It's going to transfer $3.9 billion out of the Building Australia Fund into this new future fund for drought. That's our first concern about this bill. We believe if there is merit in investing heavily in building drought resilience—and we do think that—then it's worth funding. We do not believe that you should steal $3.9 billion out of another fund to make the investment. Regional Australia needs drought assistance, but it also needs critical infrastructure. It needs roads, in particular. Why the government would want to rob Peter to pay Paul, I don't know, but the opposition absolutely rejects the concept. If this bill is of merit, it should be funded on the budget.
Second, we are really concerned about what this fund looks like, or, indeed, what it doesn't look like. We don't know how this money is going to be spent. I think I know when it will be largely spent—during the next election campaign. Those listening who think that the government is going to go away and build some grand strategy for long-term drought resilience are, sadly, probably mistaken. You can bet London to a brick that, if this bill gets through this parliament, from day one of the election campaign, the $100 million proposed to be drawn down each year on this fund will be spent, and it'll be spent on projects that the government claims are important drought resilience projects. It's not hard to claim that. With most projects, whether it be on-farm infrastructure, roads or whatever it might be, you can claim that. And you can be just as certain it will be spent in National Party seats. This fund looks to me very much like yet another National Party slush fund.
That's very offensive.
The member for Corangamite finds that offensive. We are in a robust parliament here, as the Prime Minister shows us daily in question time when he seeks to politicise Queensland floods, for example, and she finds it offensive that I would suggest that the National Party would have a slush fund! I think that, if she goes and does a bit of research, she might find my statement to be very true. I suspect she won't go and do the research, because I don't think she needs to. I think she knows this already. Exhibit A is sitting right over there: the member for New England. He never saw a bit of pork he didn't want to barrel. That's the member for New England. And, of course, he's the guy who showed no care for the agricultural sector by moving the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale, where he knew it couldn't work, but he didn't care. He didn't care. It got him through an election campaign. He was able to promise something. What are they doing now? They're employing people in Canberra against their own government policy order. The policy order says, 'You shall not have APVMA staff working within 150 kilometres'—I think it is—'of Canberra.' Well, now they are. There are 40 or 50 of them, as I understand it, because, as we predicted, they can't make it work. These are highly respected regulatory scientists and lawyers. They have families in Canberra and kids in school. They're not going, so now they're staying. We asked the CEO of the APVMA: 'How is this so? This is in breach of your own government policy order.' He said, 'I've got legal advice.' He's got legal advice that he can breach the terms of his government's own government policy order. But would he show us the legal advice? Nah.
We're to believe that, if this bill passes the parliament, the advice for how the money will be spent—I shouldn't say we are to believe; we believe it—will be done by the minister, with no parliamentary accountability and no transparency. By the way, these aren't my words; these are the words of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. And off the advice of who? The member for New England's Regional Investment Corporation and his hand-picked group. An organisation which has zero expertise in these matters—zero expertise!—is going to tell the government how to spend $100 million a year. This is bad public policy, and every member of this House should reject it.
There is a better way. Labor will oppose this bill, but we'll spend as much money and we'll fund it on the budget as it should be funded. We'll fund it on the budget. It won't be a pork-barrelling exercise. It won't be a slush fund. We'll establish a farm productivity and sustainability fund and we will have a panel of guardians appointed in the early days of our government, if elected. We'll have economists, environmentalists and agronomists. We'll have the Soil Advocate. We'll have a farm leadership group. We'll have a representative of the Rural Research and Development Corporations. We'll have the secretary of the COAG committee. And we'll have them, in the shortest possible time, recommend to the new government how this money can be spent in a way that maximises our main effort—that is, to better prepare farmers for drought, to get innovation out there and inside the farm gate and to develop sustainable profitability even in the most difficult of times. We will consider those recommendations and we'll start rolling that money out to farmers as quickly as possible. It will be a considered plan from the experts and the people at the coalface, the people who know what needs to be done. That's Labor's plan. It's a better plan. We will spend the money on the budget. We won't steal it from regional road projects, and we'll let the experts provide the guidance and tell us, as a government, where they believe that money can be best spent.
When asked whether they can have confidence in this fund being established by the government—a fund which has no detail—in 2013 something really historic occurred. Following an earlier agreement in about '08 or '09, the commonwealth and all the states come together and agreed, supported by the National Farmers' Federation and other farm leadership groups, that we've got to rethink drought policy. More than that: we need to tear it up and start again. A number of principles were adopted, many of which go to the things I've been talking about, including resilience. It was the role of the Standing Council on Primary Industries to progress those principles over the next five years, to put the meat on the bone, to say how we make the principles become reality. Do you know what happened then, Mr Deputy Speaker? There was a federal election and the coalition secured the government benches. What happened next? The member for New England came along and abolished SCoPI. The abolished the COAG committee charged with progressing drought reform. In five years, we've had no progress whatsoever.
When the member for New England first abolished SCoPI, he said: 'It's all right; we'll just have a meeting from time to time, ad hoc. It'll be all right.' Over time, it became a bit more formal and this AGMIN meeting emerged. We seemed to be creeping back to a more formal process where ministers have an agenda which is pursued on an ongoing basis. But it seems a little bit too late for that AGMIN group to do anything meaningful. Indeed, some questions were asked in Senate estimates about these issues. We got a little bit of an insight into how AGMIN works. The officials could not provide detailed information as to the role the Commonwealth government will play in progressing the many items listed in the latest AGMIN communique. AGMIN was held on 8 February 2019 and critical items appeared to be left to state governments to address. Indeed, we're told that it was the Victorian government that ensured that these important climate change related issues were on the agenda. That doesn't instil me with any confidence that this government still is taking the COAG process seriously. The states are the main managers of our land sector and we can't achieve what we want to achieve in drought resilience if we don't have them on board and working with us. Their participation will be absolutely critical to the success of any project going forward.
I appeal to those who will be voting on this bill to join with the opposition in embracing a far more sensible approach to addressing these serious drought issues. Our approach, of course, must fall into three categories. Farmers in drought need immediate assistance—cash. That's why we have a farm household allowance, another matter of bipartisanship. But since 2014 farmers have been unable to access farm household allowance, certainly not in a timely way. I see the member for New England smiling. It's still happening.
Because you're hopeless!
It's still happening. It's 2019 and they still can't access farm household allowance. They still can't access it. They can't get this right.
Second, we need to incentivise investment in on-farm structure. I'm going to acknowledge some of the good things the government has done on this front. For example, we're with you on accelerated depreciation. That's good. We need farmers investing in on-farm infrastructure. That's a good thing to do. That gets a tick. That's a good thing to do.
The big missing picture is the third tranche, and that's resilience building, better preparing for drought and maintaining profitability in drought. This is the area this government hasn't been prepared to talk about for the last five years or more. Now it wants us to believe that this is the response. We had a drought summit after probably five years, or close to it. The Prime Minister—the new Prime Minister at the time—decided we needed a drought summit, a talk fest. No-one was there that hasn't been in the conversation 100 times before. There were no scientists or economists or agronomists, as we would have on our panel; it was just all the usual people who are well intentioned but who have a voice anyway, saying the same things we've all been saying for a long time. I do acknowledge those who bravely stood and talked about climate change and the need to act.
The great disappointment of the drought summit, other than the obvious, was that the Prime Minister's announcement came on the drought fund before the drought summit even kicked off—a slap in the face for everyone who was attending. They thought they were going there to make a contribution to the outcome, but the outcome was given before they walked in the door. That's an important point, because it highlights again what this fund is all about. Is it really all about finally embracing the need for a science based, strategic approach to long-term drought funding, or, really, is it about the next election campaign? Given the timing of this, it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that this is not about helping our farmers. If they wanted to help our farmers, they wouldn't be robbing them of the investments that could be made out of the Building Australia Fund. After five years, this sudden rush to pretend they're doing something is not about our farmers, it's not about sustainable profitability and it's not about our natural environment. No, it's about the National Party, that mob that get four per cent of the primary vote nationally but get to run the government, or at least be a large part of the government. But people are tiring of it. They're waking up to them and they're coming after them, and this stunt, this slush fund they're trying to create to buy those votes back, will fail. People should oppose this bill.
I rise to address some comments by the member for—well, we think it's Hunter; sometimes he goes there. The member for Hunter is a man rarely seen in his own electorate, a man we pick up so many complaints about from the seat next door in New England. They can't contact him; he's invisible.
Let's go through the crux of the issue. I will tell you what the Labor Party's policy for agriculture is thus far. First, they're going to close down the live sheep trade. I imagine it's a precursor to what they did before, which was close down the live cattle trade. Then—we know this from the speeches we've had in here from the Labor Party—they're going to have a look at the transport industry: the cattle trucks carting around the stock. In a land so immense as Australia, there is absolutely no point in saying we're going to start following European guidelines. It just won't work.
Labor do not support dams. In fact, they're on the record that they're going to take money out of our dams policy. That's because they can't take on the Greens. They're ridden over by the Greens. At least we have a formal coalition. They have an informal one with political terrorists who, basically, drive the agenda. They don't want an agricultural industry. They don't support the Regional Investment Corporation. They mock it. There is a major move towards getting a greater propensity for forward vision in the corporation, and they are going to close it down. So they close down the live sheep trade and close down the Regional Investment Corporation.
Labor don't believe in decentralisation. They worship the gods of Canberra, Melbourne, and Sydney. Apparently it's not just and not proper unless it happens in one of the capitals. Then they come up with this erroneous proposition that the APVMA is not working. It is. We've got about 80 staff there now. They're coming in from all round the world—not despite it being in Armadale but because it's in Armadale. Labor have never given us any vision, such as a movement towards the Bradfield Scheme—something to start a nation-building project that, although it could never get rid of drought, could mitigate some up the effects of drought.
Looking at some of the other issues, they bring up FHA. My gosh, I would never have gone there, Member for Hunter. I think you had about 386 people who were receiving FHA. We have 7,100 people who've had access to it under us. Labor don't believe in the concessional loans we're giving out, even though it is close to three-quarters of a billion to a billion dollars that we've lent out at concessional rates. It has a large demand; it must be working.
What have we delivered? In this term, since we took over from the Labor Party—which just does not believe in regional towns and does not believe in agriculture—we've provided record sheep prices, near-record wool prices, record cattle prices, record horticultural prices and record lamb prices. The Labor Party had literally decimated the agriculture department. The budget for the agriculture department more than halved under their time. It's right that the member for Hunter—or possibly Hunter; he's the member for Hunter when he's there—sits at the very edge of their bench, because that's about where agriculture is in Labor Party logic: at the very edge of their frontbench.
This morning they've moved for a floor price in milk. Sounds great. We actually had one before. We had a floor price in wool. In the end, some of the suggestions were that we should burn the stock of wool down, because unfortunately it was completely affecting the whole market.
Now, after we have a floor price for milk, I can't wait for people wanting a floor price for carrots, a floor price for tomatoes, a floor price for cattle, a floor price for wool again, a floor price for sheep and a floor price for avocados. This is going to be complete chaos! The issue in this area is how the market power of major organisations work, at times, to the detriment of farmers, and breaking that nexus down. The issue is major supermarkets selling milk at $1 a litre, except for Woolworths, which changed just the other day, when water is nearly twice the price. That's the issue you need to address, and unless you have the fortitude to really go into that space then all you're doing is taking the farmers to a position where they still really don't recognise what they'll get out of the floor price and where the major supermarkets can rely on their capacity to exploit farmers because the government will pick up the tab.
That means the Labor Party doesn't have the capacity to take on major organisations. That is peculiar, because when we put up divestiture powers in one small section of the power industry, they went out of their tree. Why would they do that? Why would they be so worried about that, about us trying to bring down the price of power to further assist the large power bills of irrigators, dairy farmers and so many sections in the agricultural community? It's because they don't want to offend big unions, who work hand in glove with big business, especially big power companies. Divestiture of powers speaks directly into that space. By their very actions, they're not helping farmers, basically.
I'll say something about what I do agree with: I agree with access to justice, which we helped support. The reason I do that is because that is actually dealing in the mechanism where we can fit so many problems and have them properly supported in a court process so that a just outcome is provided, and not the outcome provided as a result of the largest chequebook.
One of the most annoying things is the Labor Party coming out with their solution to so many regional problems—and we hear it, parrot-fashion, from the member for Hunter. Maybe he's there today? They're going to solve the drought with a climate change policy. Now, I absolutely acknowledge climate change, but this idea that you can trundle around the countryside saying, 'What we'll do is go straight back to parliament'—and I've heard this—'and we're going to effect a climate change policy immediately.' People go out and look at the sky, look around and say: 'Oh, you can make it rain from a green room in Canberra! You're an absolute genius!' How does that work? How exactly is that going to work? Stick your head out the window of your car as you're driving on your way back to the Hunter at some stage and ask this, 'Is this actually going to bring any solution to the immediate problems right here and now for people living with the drought?' Of course, the answer is no.
But the member for Hunter, the shadow minister for agriculture, has to try to stitch together some of their other policy agenda items, driven by the Greens, and call it an agricultural solution that will happen now. There is not one person—not the most ardent climate change scientist—who says that Australia acting alone is going to have any effect whatsoever on the climate. It is an arguable point whether even the world working in unison, acting alone, will have any effect on what are changing climactic conditions. I acknowledge that. But they'll never grasp something that can help seriously, such as irrigation.
Remember, one of the issues is the reason why we don't have blue-green algae outbreaks at Bingara or even right through to Moree or Tamworth, I suppose. That's because they have a regulated system of water upstream that releases water. And upstream from that regulation, guess what we get? As we go upstream, where there are no dams, we get back into blue-green algae outbreaks. That is just part and parcel of it.
This is what the Australian Labor Party is like: the member for 'sometimes I might be in the Hunter' rarely to never asks a question about agriculture. He might go to the despatch box for a little snide remark or some smart alec comment which he thinks is somehow humorous—it's usually nauseous. But he's never come out and actually asked us anything substantial about agricultural policy. Do you know why? He doesn't care about agricultural policy. I imagine he's looking for his next move up the bench. The agricultural minister in the Labor Party is the person who holds the door open for everyone else, because they don't see a purpose for him being in the room. That's basically how it works.
We then go to decentralisation. The Regional Investment Corporation, while they would probably have it if they could put it in Canberra, don't believe in the APVMA being in Armidale. They want to move it back, even though we have got a $24 million building that is just near completion there and have between 60 and 80 employees there. We are going to build up to 150 employees, but they think they're so smart when they attack it. It just says, in a clarion way, that they don't believe in regional Australia and they don't believe in agriculture.
We heard other examples of how they don't believe in regional Australia this morning from Mr Richard Marles. He said that they don't believe in the thermal coal industry or in Adani, which is going to help so many people who are unemployed in North Queensland. They just don't believe in. They believe in the fairies at the bottom of the garden and the expansion of the philosophical zeitgeist of the far left. They believe in that. They want it to happen in Sydney, they want it to happen in Canberra and they want to happen in Melbourne, but they don't want it in the centre of Tasmania—no, they don't want that. They don't believe in decentralising to Tasmania, to the member for Lyons' seat. No, they can't have that. They've just got to keep the member for Lyons in regional Tasmania, locked firmly under a rock and shut up, so they can't get anything.
You have to remember that a lot of our water infrastructure money, which the Labor Party never supported, went to the centre of Tasmania. It was the Labor Party that was saying, 'We can't have any more water infrastructure there. We don't have money to finance it there.' How are they going to explain that to the people who might want to vote for them? They also have to understand that to get expansion of further agricultural industries, they're going to need water. They have to have water shortages. For an expansion of the poultry industry in Tamworth, they're going to need water and they're going to need water shortages.
We never get any sense of vision from the Labor Party. They never have provided a coherent idea in agriculture. They merely talk about our positions, because they've got no positions of their own. That's their policy position; it's to put agriculture at the edge of the bench. It's only almost out of guilt that they have agriculture there, because they just don't believe in it. This is something that is going to be decisive in regional seats at this election. The Labor Party can clearly spell out their policy, rather than saying, 'Over time it will get better as you develop. If people get thrown under a bus on farms in regional Australia, that's just tough luck.'
The member for Hunter has said that we have to have an expansion of corporate agriculture in Australia, because the Labor Party doesn't believe in family farms. It's somehow impolite. They can prop up every other philosophical cause of the Greens, but they don't believe in anything for regional Australia. It's reflected in their vote. It's reflected even in their cabinet positioning, as to where agriculture is. They have never come out and said they will spend a dollar on agriculture. They will comment on our $4 billion white paper, but they never suggest their alternative.
If we are to look after people in droughts, we have to make sure that we provide the mechanism for their funding into the future. We are doing this with this bill, which will build to a $5 billion fund. But all we got out of the Labor Party just then from their member was, 'Maybe I like to go home to the Hunter every now and then.' What we got from him is him saying, 'This is a slush fund. This is outrageous. How dare you use some money to help these people out over in the long term, in a substantive way that can prevail?' No, do you know who those opposite are going to rely on? They're going to rely on the member for Hunter. Good luck with that prospect.
What are they actually going to do here? What is the Labor Party going to sell to the people who are suffering in the north with the floods and in other areas with the drought? What are they selling? What policy have they got? They have nothing. That is precisely why people have no confidence in the Australian Labor Party, and why they're cynical of everything that they actually come up with. The Labor Party have got up to this point in their term and said nothing about agriculture. Of course, if you don't support agriculture, you don't support the people in the towns in regional areas. You don't support the shops in Launceston, you don't support the tyre business in Moree and you don't support the hairdresser in Tamworth, because you don't support their economic base. That message is so clear: they have no support for the economic base in regional areas.
It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
The rise of anti-Semitism in Australian society is a disturbing trend that must be stopped. Over Christmas, we saw the disgusting spectacle of a Neo-Nazi rally at St Kilda Beach attended by an Australian senator, who doesn't deserve the notoriety of being named, where people were being seen giving Nazi salutes and wearing replica SS helmets. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has reported that an unprecedented 60 per cent rise in anti-Semitic incidents—assaults, abuse, vandalism, graffiti and threats—has been experienced by the Jewish community in Australia.
No decent Australian can tolerate this. It's a threat to Australian multiculturalism. It's important that we have elected representatives and a government who take this threat seriously and act on it. That is why David Icke, well-known British holocaust denier, should not be allowed entry into Australia to preach his toxic message. As Primo Levi said:
To deny Auschwitz is to be ready to rebuild it.
Labor's candidate for Macnamara, Josh Burns, has been campaigning with Jewish community leaders to ensure that David Icke is denied entry into Australia. Josh knows about the threat of anti-Semitism. His ancestors fled Nazi Germany and, since Josh commenced his campaign to ban David Icke, he has faced anti-Semitic abuse himself. I call on the Morrison government to listen to Josh Burns' call and to act. As reported in The Australian today, David Ickes he could be spouting his vitriol in Melbourne, the home of the largest Jewish community in Australia, in just a fortnight.
It's time to do something tangible to fight the growth of anti-Semitism in Australia. It's time for the Morrison government to act. (Time expired)
For 40 years, Des Whitney has been serving the residents of Kyogle as a paramedic with Ambulance NSW. He loves working in Kyogle where everyone knows everyone. He received recognition in the Sydney paper The Daily Telegraph when he and fellow paramedics helped a young boy at Cedar Point after he was kicked by a horse and for the many other rescues that he's done.
The community of Kyogle held a farewell for Des recently at the Kyogle Bowling Club, where many from the emergency services fields turned up, including members of the SES, police and nurses from the local hospital. There were plenty of tears and memories from the past 40 years. I congratulate Des on such a long and worthwhile career and wish him all the best in his retirement.
I would also like to acknowledge the great work my state colleague Chris Gulaptis is doing in our community. The new $240 million Grafton Bridge is finally being constructed thanks to Chris. He also secured $27 million to build a new bridge at Sportsmans Creek at Lawrence. He is delivering Australia's largest prison in the Clarence Valley, injecting $560 million into the local economy over the next 20 years and will create up to 1,100 jobs during construction and 600 once operational. He secured $17.5 million for stage one redevelopment of Grafton Base Hospital. And there's much, much more. I wish him all the very best in the upcoming state election.
This Liberal government really has no clue. They're so out of touch, it is unbelievable. Yesterday, we learnt that the Senator Cormann, the Minister for Finance and the Public Service, has the CEO of Helloworld on speed dial. That CEO also just so happens to be the Liberal Party treasurer. Helloworld just so happens to have a $1 billion contract with this Liberal government and—wouldn't you know it—when Minister Cormann called up the CEO to book a family holiday, it was never charged to his credit card.
Let's take a look at a few angles here. First of all, who calls the CEO of a travel company to book a holiday? Does the minister also call the CEO of Dominos to order a pizza? Secondly, how do you not notice that $2,700 for travel hasn't been charged to your credit card? I can tell you for sure that the people of Cowan would notice a few extra thousand dollars in their accounts. Lastly, Minister Cormann has called this financial glitch a 'mistake'—yet another 'administrative error'. Well, phew, now I can rest easy—considering his entire job is to manage the finances and administration of our nation! The finance minister is an embarrassment. The government have just given up. They're chaotic; they're divided and they're out of touch. Enough is enough—time is up for this government.
Labor's proposed $200 billion taxathon is the largest single increase in taxation proposed by an opposition since Gough Whitlam thought 'It's time' for higher taxes. The largest of their new taxes, and possibly the worst, is Labor's unfair retiree tax. Everywhere I go in Brisbane, people have been raising their deep concerns about Labor's plan to abolish tax refunds for franking credits. I've now had thousands of people across Brisbane contact me to tell me how they're strongly against this unfair policy. This is not a policy that targets the rich and well-off, as Labor likes to pretend. The reality is that Labor's unfair policy targets many low-income retirees and will also hit many pensioners.
And it's not just senior Australians. The Economics Committee held a public hearing in Brisbane a few weeks ago.
It won't hit any pensioners.
Member for Burt!
One of the witnesses was a motor mechanic who left the workforce due to a disability. He told us that, under Labor's proposed policy, he'll lose $9,000 a year—a quarter of his annual income—the money he uses to fund the medical expenses and other costs associated with his family and one of his children who has special needs. There are thousands and thousands more stories just like that, street by street, across Brisbane and across Australia. The fact is, Labor's policy hits the most vulnerable the hardest. It is discriminatory and it is unfair.
On 11 December 2013, the Financial Review's headline read: 'Hockey dares GM to leave'. It was a terrible day for my electorate. Then Treasurer Hockey basically dared General Motors Holden to close production here in Australia. Apparently, he was outraged at taxpayer assistance to the auto industry. He told this House:
A hell of a lot of industries in Australia would love to get the assistance the automotive industry is getting.
Well, now we know which he had in mind—Helloworld—because in today's Sydney Morning Herald it is reported that, in April 2017, Mr Hockey told Washington embassy staff to meet with an executive of Helloworld, the listed travel service company managed by Mr Andrew Burnes, Mr Hockey's good friend and Liberal Party treasurer. It also records that Mr Hockey is one of Helloworld's 20 largest shareholders and now has a shareholding of $1.3 million. It also records that Mr Burnes donated $500,000 to the Liberal Party.
These must be very, very uncomfortable facts, given that the finance minister has overseen a $1 billion tender for government travel to—guess who? What a surprise—Helloworld! One billion dollars is about the same amount of money it took to support 50,000 autoworkers in Australia. But what is this government doing with $1 billion? This government is handing it to Helloworld.
Professor Michael Cousins AM is truly an outstanding member of the Mackellar community. But his work and legacy spans much further than just our community. Professor Cousins has had an impressive career, working in the field of persistent pain for over 40 years as a clinician, researcher, educator, administrator and community advocate. Professor Cousins has developed two multidisciplinary pain centres: one at the Flinders Medical Centre in Adelaide and the second, the Michael J Cousins Pain Management and Research Centre, at the Royal North Shore Hospital. Having written three books and over 350 peer reviewed publications, it is safe to say that the professor has kept himself busy. He also served as the founding president of the Australian Pain Society and founding dean of the Faculty of Pain Medicine at the University of Sydney. In 2010, his policy work became significant, as he chaired the National Pain Summit in Canberra, which led to the National Pain Strategy, the world's first national framework for the best-practice assessment, treatment and management of acute, chronic and cancer pain. This led to Professor Cousins being invited to chair the International Pain Summit in Montreal in 2010.
None of these works are small feats. Professor Cousins has made it his life's work to improve the lives of others through pain management. Last November, his selfless work was recognised and honoured in a portrait by the New South Wales artist Peter Smeeth. (Time expired)
Public confidence and credibility in the parliament and its procedures continues to be trashed by the decaying Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Yesterday, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner confirmed that preliminary inquiries are being conducted into the member for Goldstein for potential breaches of the Privacy Act as chair of the House Economics Committee. It's another blunder by the Liberals in their scare campaign against changes to franking credit refunds to people who don't pay tax. People are outraged that their personal details have been passed on without their consent from a Liberal Party-owned website to Wilson Asset Management, owned by Geoff Wilson and—surprise, surprise—the website is also partly funded by Mr Wilson. People were required to sign a Liberal Party petition as a condition of making a submission to a House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics inquiry. It's a new low for procedures in this place. It comes on the back of Liberal Party MPs handing out membership forms to the LNP at committee hearings and fundraisers on the back of the committee hearings. The committee held a hearing where the timing and location was organised to occur on the same day as a nearby shareholder presentation which was organised by—guess who, wait for it; you'll never guess—Geoff Wilson and Wilson Asset Management. These actions and many more bring into disrepute the standing of the House economics committee, and it's clear that the member for Goldstein must resign as the chair of that committee. If he won't resign, the Prime Minister must sack him.
The closure of the Repatriation General Hospital was one of the worst decisions made by the former South Australian Labor government. The South Australian members of the federal Labor Party, stood by and let it happen. My local community was devastated by Labor's actions. Our veterans were devastated, our community was devastated, and the wonderful, caring repat staff were devastated. No fewer than 119,000 people signed a petition protesting the closure. Despite this, in December 2017, the heartless former state Labor government closed this iconic and important community hospital. The closure of the Repat was a terrible blow to my community, reduced access to health services for residents in southern Adelaide and, in particular, reduced access to vital therapy services for our veterans.
Labor's decision also disregarded the sentimental value of the Repat site to our veterans and their families, many of whom were cared for at the hospice in their last days or whose funeral services were held in the Heritage Chapel. I am so proud to be part of the Liberal team that is reversing Labor's appalling decision and replacing the services our community say that they want to see on the site. On Sunday 17 February, I stood alongside Premier Steven Marshall to launch the Repat master plan. Together, the state and federal Liberal governments are reactivating the Repat so we can provide vital health services for our community in a safe and loving environment.
Colleagues, I'd like to welcome to Parliament House today some of my electorate's many young leaders, and I'd specifically like a call out to the leadership team at Victory Lutheran College in Wodonga. To Tom, Sophie, Jacob and Chloe, led by the wonderful Mr Wiese, welcome to Parliament House. Colleagues, there is so much good work done by young people in my electorate, and I want to take this opportunity today to honour, acknowledge and thank all the young people, particularly the young leaders in the school but not only in the school. On Saturday night, I had the joyful opportunity to attend the LGBTI inaugural gay ball in Wodonga, organised by our local gay pride group, supported by youth worker Sal Kimber and Indigo Council, a fantastic example of grassroots leadership in my community. Today, I want to say to young people right throughout Indi: I want to honour your commitment, your dedication, your generosity and your kindness. I want to say continue to be leaders. Our country needs you. Our country wants you. I encourage you to sign up, to turn up and to speak up so that, when you're my age, the world that you leave for your grandchildren is significantly better than the one we currently have. Thank you for coming. Please take the message back to your school and your community: leadership is a great and noble profession.
Provision needs to be made for improved health services in order to meet the anticipated need arising from the growth in population of Perth's northern coastal suburbs. I fully support the proposal by St John WA seeking federal funding to implement a trial of 10 urgent care centres, which provide an alternative to patients presenting to hospital emergency departments for non-life-threatening conditions. The trial requires $185 million in funding for the initial infrastructure start-up costs, including four years' operating costs, ensuring that patients can continue to be bulk-billed.
Assuming that the trial is successful and becomes normalised, the financial support reduces to $15 million per annum in operating assistance to support all 10 centres per year thereon. With the government's support, the number of St John Urgent Care centres could increase from three to 10, and it will be cost-effective to the government by $200 per patient for the first four years and over $500 per patient thereafter, which will equate to an estimated $800 million saving over 20 years. I urge the Minister for Health to favourably consider the proposal by St John Ambulance WA on its merits.
When I was elected in 2016, I made a commitment to represent my community and work for the Australian people. Yesterday, when the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources encouraged the Australian people to boycott Coles and ALDI and to shop at Woolworths instead, he failed to mention that both he and his wife have shares in Woolworths and would directly benefit from the increase in their profits. That's working for the Australian people, isn't it! I wonder how many of the minister's constituents work at these supermarkets and would face losing shifts and even their jobs if Australians actually took his advice?
This isn't the first time he's disregarded his constituents. Last year it was reported that the government's crackdown on payday lenders and appliance companies was at risk due to internal opposition. This legislation would cap the amount a consumer could spend on rental items and, in the words of the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations, 'stop vulnerable people from being exploited in paying over and above prices for goods because they don't have the capacity to pay and fork out the cash on day one'. Well, it seems the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has a vested interest in this legislation too. He owned an appliance rental company at the time, which charged four times the regular retail price for goods like laptops and fridges. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources is embarrassing, and he's not working for all Australians like we will.
At the forthcoming election, the people of Cowper have an important decision to make. The Nationals have a great candidate running for Cowper at the next election in Pat Conaghan. Pat is a Kempsey boy, former policeman and now a lawyer. Pat understands the needs of the people of Cowper. Pat knows that the people of Cowper do not want a retiree tax. Pat also knows that there are reports in the media today that some 50,000 pensioners will be slugged by Labor's retiree tax. Pat Conaghan knows that Cowper's pensioners don't want Labor's retiree tax. Pat also knows that the people of Cowper want strong and secure borders. And I say to the people of Cowper: if you want secure borders and you don't want a retiree tax, vote for Pat Conaghan.
A vote for Labor is a vote for a retiree tax, and a vote for Labor is a vote to dismantle our border protection system. But also lurking in the shadows is a candidate who pretends to be independent but in fact is nothing but a Labor stooge, and that's Rob Oakeshott. So if you want a retiree tax, you can also vote for Rob Oakeshott, because he will give you Labor. If you want to destroy our border protection system, you can vote for Rob Oakeshott, because he'll give you Labor.
What a week we've had for hypocrisy from this government again! We have heard in estimates from the Australian Federal Police that not once but twice the former Minister for Jobs and Innovation and the former Minister for Justice have refused to be interviewed by the AFP. The AFP did disclose that they got a letter from the former minister, who's still a minister and sitting in the cabinet, but it was a letter—it wasn't a witness statement. Now it's been revealed that this person's office has been involved in destroying some of the evidence in relation to this. What hypocrisy from those opposite! They're not afraid to stand up in this place and use parliamentary privilege to name and shame people who are in unions and to name and shame the Leader of the Opposition, who did confront a royal commission and who did answer every question that was put to him. They use parliamentary privilege to avoid scrutiny.
What we have learnt this week in estimates is that two ministers who are under the protection of this Prime Minister continue to evade the truth. It is a case of one rule for Liberals and another rule for everyone else. They use whatever they can to demonise their political opponents and to demonise unions, but are not willing to step up and respect the rule of law. It's time this government acted and took account of this. It's time these ministers resigned. It's time— (Time expired)
Two weeks ago, the health minister came to Mandurah to announce a $25 million investment in the Peel Health Campus. The Peel Health Campus was built in 1997, when the City of Mandurah was half the population of today. We are now WA's second-largest city and we continue to grow.
Mandurah and the Peel region need more investment in roads, rail and infrastructure, and I've been fighting for and delivering that investment. There was $21.75 million for the Peel Business Park, a big job creator; $5 million for aged care in Pinjarra and Waroona; and now $25 million for the Peel Health Campus, which will deliver a new emergency department, new facilities for radiology and residential care for the treatment of eating disorders. This is the single-biggest investment in the Peel Health Campus since 1997.
It's true that the Barnett government overlooked the Peel Health Campus, but the WA Labor government promised to deliver more investment into the Peel region and they've now been in government for two years. The member for Mandurah, David Templeman, a state cabinet minister, and therefore close to power, can sing in parliament but he's failed to bring the money into the Peel region. We're still waiting for the $20 million for the Mandurah station car park upgrade.
Under McGowan and Templeman, we've only received $5 million for the Peel Health Campus—1.5 per cent of the total WA state health budget. This is a welcome investment, but the Morrison government has delivered five times the amount of investment into health in the Peel health region. So where is WA Labor in the Peel region?
During question time, sometimes the Minister for Human Services and I engage in back-and-forth. He does the back and I do the forth! The other day he asked me why I hadn't asked him a question. The problem is that I don't have one question; I have a lot of questions to ask, like: why should older Australians dig into meagre savings while waiting for an aged-pension application to be approved? Why, for example, have they not been able to find a way to hand millions in Medicare rebates back to families? Why do they keep cutting jobs and contracting out services? Why can't they reduce complaints? Why does it take so long to get through to Centrelink? Why is it that if a person is hit with a robo-debt they can't use, 'I cannot recall' as a defence, but a minister of the Crown can use that when they're in a court of law? Why is it okay to be big on compliance as the Minister for Human Services, but the same minister can, apparently, decline a request from the Australian Federal Police to provide a witness statement?
It's typical coalition: big on law and order, selective when it comes to them. If a Labor minister refused to provide the AFP with a witness statement, the coalition and all their conservative cronies in the media would be baying for blood. So the final question I have is this: why is there one rule for the coalition and something completely different for the rest of the country? It's unacceptable.
I'm often in schools talking to young people. One thing I like to do is talk about senior Australians and the wonderful country that they have left us. I'm thankful, as someone who was born here in Australia, for the senior Australians who have left us this great country.
Last year, I established the Petrie electorate Aged Care Excellence Awards. These awards aim to celebrate and thank the dedicated workers and amazing volunteers from aged-care facilities in my electorate of Petrie. I started the awards following the establishment of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Since I was elected in 2013 I have visited every aged-care facility in my electorate, and have been inspired by wonderful stories.
I mention this because I want those families with people in aged care to know that there are so many great aged-care providers out there. It would only be a very small minority of people who do the wrong thing. But when I asked for feedback from senior Australians they mentioned, for example, Allan Graham, who is involved in maintenance at Palm Lake Resort in Deception Bay. They said that he is a willing worker, that he will help with anything and that he helps all the workers. They said that Gabriel Oriti, who is the manager and lifestyle officer at IRT at Bracken Ridge, is the go-to person who gives exceptional care. And at Aveo at Bridgeman Downs there is Jenny Evans, the wellness nurse—she is a lovely person, always happy and friendly.
I could go on. I want to thank everyone involved in aged care. (Time expired)
I stand in this place because we want more! The behaviour of the member for Moore has been exposed as simply not good enough. Rock lobsters have been a hot topic in WA in recent weeks, but the tales just keep getting curlier in relation to the member for Moore . What we're hearing is, quite frankly, cray cray.
The member for Moore escorted a delegation of overseas businesspeople to two lobster businesses that pay a commission to his company for securing export deals in his capacity as an MP. Lonely Planet warns tourists to other countries about guides taking them to restaurants where they get a commission, but I never expected that in Perth, especially not from an MP hosting a business delegation nowhere near his own electorate. It should be self-evident that members of parliament should not be using their status of office to benefit personally—but not the member for Moore; what he's been doing is simply 'shellfish'.
A recent media report outlined how the member promoted, on his official social media account, a cafe that leases a space from a shopping centre he partly owns. Then, in another report, we learnt he promoted on his official LinkedIn page the sales campaign of a property business he has a 50 per cent stake in—not that this is reflected anywhere in his register of interests!
The Prime Minister is running a protection racket for the misdemeanours of his ministers and his backbenchers because he's losing PMs and members of his party so rapidly they're becoming an endangered species. So I ask the Prime Minister: is there a special lobster clause regarding members' interests now? Apparently it's one rule for Liberal members and another rule for everyone else. (Time expired)
Cyclone Oma could cross the southern Queensland coast very, very soon. That would bring yet another deluge, another massive flood. It seems self-evident, if we have massive floods in the north, a drought in the middle, fish kills and blue-green algae issues in the middle and the Lower Lakes wanting more water all the time, that we should have the mechanism and the skill set to build the Bradfield scheme or a version that does precisely the same job: brings water from where there's a massive amount to an area that has none.
The other day I was fortunate enough to have in the office Sir Leo Hielscher, who was the head of the Queensland Treasury for 46 years under the Labor Party, the National Party and the Liberal Party. People in that capacity have always said we have the capacity to build this. We would be looking at a cost north of $15 billion, but in the same breath we are looking at similar costs for such things as a bullet train. At nearly $50 billion for stage 1, the NBN could cost somewhere between $60 billion and $80 billion by the time it's finished. We have to be smart enough to rely on expertise such as that of Bradfield, who built the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Story Bridge, to have the same vision projected onto our time as we head into the future. This is something that would invigorate inland towns, provide environmental water and make our nation a greater and stronger place for the future.
This is a desperate Prime Minister who leads a government where the member for Moore over there thinks he's done nothing wrong by abusing his position to promote a lobster-processing business in which he has a financial interest. This is a desperate Prime Minister when a company based in a beach shack on Kangaroo Island gets a $423 million security contract. This is a desperate Prime Minister when—while he's Treasurer—the Great Barrier Reef Foundation walks into a meeting and walks out with $444 million. This is a desperate Prime Minister when the member for Goldstein colludes with a private company that manages some of his investments, run by a fellow member of the Wilson clan, and abuses his chairmanship to a parliamentary committee to waste money on a sham inquiry. This is a desperate Prime Minister when Ministers Cash and Keenan refuse to cooperate with a police investigation and the Prime Minister comes in here and says, 'No, they've made a statement, along with the Minister for Home Affairs.' This is a desperate Prime Minister when the company Helloworld, run by Liberal Party Treasurer Andrew Burnes, gets a billion-dollar government travel contract. They say, 'Hello, world.' I say, 'Hello, conflict of interest,' Prime Minister!
The fact is: this desperate Prime Minister runs a part-time parliament that has conflicts right along the frontbench and the backbench. (Time expired)
I've spoken before in this House about the crisis facing Australian dairy farmers. I met with representatives from Farmer Power, a dairy producers group from Victoria; and the South Australian farmer who recently exited the industry, Casey Treloar. My predictions are coming true. There is a massive collapse in producer involvement in the dairy industry. In Cohuna, 14 dairy farmers have announced they're leaving. If you look online, if you want a cheap dairy farm, there are five up for sale now in Cohuna. We need to act now. Changing the milk price index and the dairy code of conduct through the machinery of government is too slow. We need a temporary levy introduced so that we will keep people in the industry, because we're getting a producer collapse, and people won't re-enter the industry once they leave. It is well past five minutes to midnight. We need to act now.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Townsville has experienced the worst natural disaster in our recorded history. The devastating floods have affected more than 22,000 homes. Why won't the Prime Minister schedule extra sitting days so this parliament can pass laws to make insurance companies treat North Queenslanders fairly? When will the Prime Minister stop listening to the insurers and start listening to the people of North Queensland?
I thank the member for her question about the Townsville floods—the floods, I think, that have affected North Queensland more generally. I appreciate the member's interest in this issue. It's been several days now that we've been back in the parliament, so I welcome the question from the member.
The ministerial task force which is focused on the rebuilding, reconstruction and recovery for North Queensland was convened on Monday evening. That ministerial task force is overseeing the government's continued response to the flood crisis in Northern Queensland. I particularly want to commend all those in the Department of Human Services who have expedited some $90 million worth of payments to ensure that people in Townsville are getting that emergency support that they so desperately need. We moved immediately to remove and extend some of the eligibility requirements for those emergency payments, and that ensured that within days, almost immediately, those payments were flowing. I was pleased to be able to visit Townsville very soon after the floods and meet with the mayor, the crisis workers there and the other emergency services workers, and I commend them on the incredible work they've been doing.
Now, we will stand with all of those in North Queensland, as we have in our immediate response, during both the recovery phase and the rebuilding phase into the future. I want to thank the Queensland government for the excellent relationship we've had working closely with them. So, not a day will pass without my government doing every single thing that is needed to support the people of North Queensland—every single day. I can only say that if the member was so concerned about the financial support that we provided—
The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
On direct relevance. The question goes to insurance, and the Prime Minister is yet to refer to it.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself. The question was about insurance, and other matters were mentioned in the course of that question, and the Prime Minister is being relevant to all of the words that were in the question. Again, I just caution members that, if they're going to complain about that, the words should just be a question; leave the commentary out of it.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, but, specifically on the matter of insurance—that is one of the many issues that the government are dealing with as part of the ministerial task force in our response to the flood crisis in Northern Queensland, and the Assistant Treasurer has been working on those issues. I can assure you the insurance companies are on notice from our government that they need to address the claims and they need to be standing with the people of North Queensland in the same way that our government is doing just that.
I'm very disappointed that the government have been in put in the situation where we have to spend half a billion dollars in the next two years on opening a detention centre, which we didn't need to do two weeks ago. The only reason we have to do that is that the leader of the Labor Party has no ticker on border protection.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on action the government is taking to build a stronger and more secure Australia? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Dunkley. Our government has been and will continue to build a stronger Australia. That is our record—the reduction in employment, the record jobs creation under this government and the investment at record levels into hospitals, into schools and affordable medicines, all of this made possible by a stronger economy, and the record is plain to see on the strength of Australia under the stewardship of our government. We have the clear plans to keep it that way and the leader of the Labor Party wants to change it all.
Our government is absolutely united on the need to put these plans in place to ensure we continue with the strong economic management and on the plans we have outlined to keep Australia stronger into the future. We are united in our opposition to the Labor Party's plans, which will make Australia weaker if they get the opportunity. We're united on lower taxes. We're united on supporting small and family businesses. We're united on carrying all of our traditional industries forward together with our new industries. That includes our mining and resource industries. That includes our forestry industries. That includes our agricultural sector. We are united in our support for a stronger economy because that's what guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on. And we're united on keeping Australians safe and secure and on ensuring that we have the border security measures in place. That's what we're united on doing together to ensure that we have a stronger Australia. But I can tell you, the Labor Party is not so united on these things.
What we heard today was the AWU's legend, Bill Ludwig, up in Queensland, calling out the Labor Party on the divisions in the Labor Party when it comes to support for our traditional industries and the resources sector in this country. The member for Corio came right in on cue describing as 'wonderful' a global market collapse that supports Australia's biggest mining export industry, that supports 55,000 jobs. That is what the member for Corio has said about those jobs. He might think it's wonderful but, I can tell you, on this side of the House, we don't think it's wonderful. In all of those places that depend on those jobs, they don't think it's wonderful.
Opposition members interjecting—
I can't hear the member for Shortland's interjections, I can't hear the member for Paterson's interjections or the member for Hunter's interjections or the member for Herbert's interjections when it comes to supporting the traditional industries of this country. This is a Labor Party that's divided on economic policy and divided on border policy—one day saying it's not fine for Christmas Island, the next day saying it is fine for Christmas Island—and now we have the deputy leader of the Labor Party conflicting with their own leader. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time, the Prime Minister said that both Minister Cash and the Minister for Human Services cooperated with the Australian Federal Police investigation about a leaked police raid. But the police told estimates they asked ministers for witness statements on at least two separate occasions but none were provided. Who is telling the truth, the Prime Minister or the police? Because both can't be correct.
There's another option—that is, the member who asked the question is not representing the truth of these proceedings, which is no surprise whatsoever. Because, as I said yesterday, the statements that were requested by the AFP were provided. At no stage was I advised that the statement provided was insufficient. And what I can tell you is that the AFP has acknowledged the receipt of both the correspondence from Minister Keenan and from Minister Cash. In relation to Minister Keenan, he said, 'I acknowledge receipt of your statement. AFP investigators will review the statement and, if we require any further clarification, we may reach out to you.' That was the end of the matter. My ministers cooperated with the requirements of the AFP and the— (Time expired)
The member for Gorton on a point of order I'm struggling to understand.
It is on direct relevance.
The member for Gorton will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
The simple explanation is this: the AFP contacted the ministers, the ministers responded and no further information was sought from the ministers.
I seek leave to table the comments by the deputy commissioner where she says, 'No, I would not classify that'—
You don't have to read them out. Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the risks and opportunity cost to regional Australia from weakening Australia's borders and not standing up for jobs?
I thank the member for Dawson for his question—a question from somebody who supports central and North Queensland jobs. I tell you who else supports Northern Queensland jobs: the member for Flynn, the member for Capricornia, the member for Leichhardt. They support Queensland jobs.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
Prime Minister, if you would just pause for a second. The member for McEwen is interjecting consistently. Just cease your interjections, okay? It's like a never-ending whipper snipper.
They support more jobs like members on this side of the House. There are any number of members who don't support jobs on that side of the House, and you know what? The AWU former president Bill Ludwig has called them out this morning. He wants them to support Queensland jobs.
The member for Dawson asked me about borders. We on this side of the House are strong on borders. Those on that side are not. They opened 19 detention centres. We closed them. Labor wasted $16 billion on its weak border policies. The Mackay Ring Road in the member for Dawson's electorate costs $800 million. Imagine what else we could build with $16,000 million. The Leader of the Opposition says one thing when he's campaigning in Mackay and another when he's in Moorabbin. He says one thing when he's in Townsville in the member for Herbert's electorate; he says another thing when he's in Toorak. The people of Queensland do not trust the member for Maribyrnong. And I tell you what: neither do a lot of other people. Does he support Queensland jobs or does he not? I think he does not.
The member for Dawson certainly supports workers. Just today we heard an extraordinary contribution from the member for Corio, the shadow minister for defence, who said that an end to our biggest export earner, a $66 billion export industry, would be wonderful and a good thing. There are 55,000 workers in that industry, and he does not support them. He thinks that them losing their jobs would be a wonderful thing. Shame on him. The member for Dawson knows just how important those workers are. How on earth are we going to pay for the tanks and for the submarines if we lose that sort of export earner? The member for Corio should understand that. He should know that.
When Labor were in power with their weak border protection policies, they did not commission one ship for defence. It wasn't that they were against ships. My goodness; they let 800 of them arrive on our shores! How on earth are we going to pay for defence investment and protect defence jobs if we don't have an export earning industry paying $66 billion? Shame on him. The member for Dawson supports jobs in Queensland. The member for Corio does not. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked whether all his ministers had fully complied with the ministerial standards in all of their dealings with Mr Andrew Burnes and Helloworld. The Prime Minister answered:
I'm advised there's nothing before me that could conflict with the question that the member just put to me.
Prime Minister, is that still the case?
It is still the case, and I'm not going to take lectures form the leader of the Labor Party, who took eight years to disclose the campaign support he got from unions when he first ran for the parliament. I'm not going to take lectures from a bloke who won't even cooperate with the police when it comes to taking money out of union members' pockets and giving it to GetUp! and himself. I'm not going to be lectured by this bloke.
I'd like to inform the House that we have joining us in the chamber this afternoon the parliamentary delegation led by the first Vice President of the National Parliament of Timor-Leste. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. And we also have joining us a parliamentary delegation from Kenya, joined by the Kenyan High Commissioner to Australia. I also extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear! Hear!
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the Deputy Prime Minister. Climate change poses massive risks to Australia's infrastructure, including from rising sea levels, floods that are more intense and bushfires like we've already seen this year. Deputy Prime Minister, will you join me in congratulating the courageous school students going on strike on 15 March right around the country, calling for urgent climate action and the protection of Australia's infrastructure? Will you commend these young people, and the 15,000 who went on strike last November, for taking time off school to show us what real leadership looks like?
I'll tell you what: real leadership doesn't look like anything that the member for Melbourne ever brings to this chamber! The children should be at school. That's where they should be. They should be learning about Australian history. They should be learning about Australian geography. They should be learning about all the lessons their teachers are willing to teach them. They should be at school.
I'm pleased that part of a government—
What about science?
The member for Kingston!
which is spending record funding on schools—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The member for Kingston is warned.
record funding on public schools and record funding on schools in general. The member for Melbourne would be far better off advising those children to go to school and to stay at school.
Who's going to look after those kids when they're out protesting? I know the Greens like to protest, because that's all you ever bring to the national debate—protests and frivolous rallies. You'd be far better off joining the Liberal and the National parties in talking about the economic narrative and in talking about how important it is to have a job in this country, because, if you want to work in this country, there's a job there for you. You'd be far better off talking about our record investment in defence and not siding with those on that side who, when they had six years of opportunity, dropped our defence investment spending levels to 1.6 per cent of GDP. That's down to the same levels of appeasement.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
I don't know why the member for Greenway is complaining or laughing. It's no laughing matter. It's important that we spend money on defence. It's important that our Defence people have the very best equipment, and under your side—
Mr Bandt interjecting—
The member for Melbourne can resume his seat. I'm just going to say that the Deputy Prime Minister was asked a question with a number of elements, but straying into defence is not relevant to the question. The Deputy Prime Minister can resume his answer, but he needs to be relevant to the question.
The best place for those children is at school, learning about Australian history and learning about all the important things that their teachers—our very best teachers, mind you—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
You've already had one go!
The member for Melbourne on a point of order. I haven't had a point of order yet. I just want to be as efficient as possible. The member for Kingston's been warned, so now is a good time for her to leave under 94(a) for continually interjecting. Then member for Melbourne on a point of order.
The member for Kingston then left the chamber.
On relevance—perhaps the minister might also like to explain what the children should do with the science that they have learnt?
Points of order aren't an opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! The member for Dawson is warned.
He's been here long enough to know he can't reintroduce new material into a question. You can't have two goes! I'm proud to be part of a government that invests in teachers—quality teachers. My daughter is a quality teacher. I tell you what, Mr Speaker, so too are our teachers. They should be in class and they should be teaching our children—the very best children—
Opposition members interjecting—
Yes, they're up there too. Well done for pointing them out! Good on you!
Mr Bowen interjecting—
I tell you what; I hope they don't learn too many sentences from you, member for McMahon, because you haven't brought much to the national debate lately. When they get old, I hope you've still got nothing to do with their franking credits and nothing to do with their negative gearing. The kids should be at school learning all the important things that their teachers are going to teach them.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on why it is important to provide older Australians the opportunity to secure financial independence in retirement? How would a higher taxing approach impact their investments and the revenues of charities?
I thank the member for Fairfax for his question, and I want to congratulate him for the excellent work that he's done on the parliamentary inquiry that's looking at franking credits. Together with the member for Goldstein, the member for Reid, the member for Mackellar, the member for Brisbane and the member for Hughes, he has given an opportunity to more than one million Australians who are going to be hit by Labor's retiree tax to be heard. Today in Parliament House there was a forum on Labor's retiree tax organised by the Alliance for a Fairer Retirement System, with representatives of National Seniors, COSBOA and others. The disgust of these people with Labor's $55 billion retiree tax—a tax that will fall hardest on the lowest income earners in our community, over 80 per cent of whom have a taxable income under $37,000 and over half of whom are women.
We know it's going to affect charities too. We know it's going to affect charities because Cancer Council Queensland said, 'Two of our major donors have advised Cancer Council Queensland that they are unlikely to be in a position to donate if this policy is introduced'—
They withdrew it.
The member for Kingsford Smith will cease interjecting.
'due to the deniability of the tax deduction.' That is in a letter—
They withdrew that submission.
The Treasurer will pause. The member for Kingsford Smith will leave under 94(a). I ask you to cease interjecting and you look at me and keep interjecting. I don't know what you expect me to do.
The member for Kingsford Smith then left the chamber.
The Treasurer has the call.
That is in a letter from Cancer Council Queensland. It is very clear. At today's hearing there were many stories, including from Norm, who is in 80s, and his wife, Margaret, who he called across the table 'his sweetheart'. He told the forum that they have contributed all their lives to the community—paying their tax and saving for their retirement. Now they are totally reliant on savings which provide them with an annual combined income of $60,000. But under Labor, their income will drop to $47,000—a $13,000 hit. 'We will survive,' Norm said, 'but the thing that incenses me is what is happening and how it is happening.' There's only one side of this parliament, there's only one side of politics—the Liberal and National Parties in government under this Prime Minister—that is standing with retirees, that won't tax them into oblivion, that won't break a 20-year consensus on franking credits and that will ensure that they can continue with their quality of life. Only the coalition can be relied on to deliver lower taxes.
The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking to table a document?
That's right. The Treasurer referred to a submission from Cancer Council Queensland in his answer. I seek leave to table their retraction.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today it's been reported that the Australian Ambassador to the United States, Joe Hockey, who has a $1 million shareholding in Helloworld, helped a Helloworld subsidiary lobby for the embassy's travel contract. How could it possibly be appropriate for Joe Hockey to use his official position as ambassador to help Helloworld win a government contract? Why does this Liberal government only ever look after itself and its mates at the top end of town?
I'm advised that Mr Hockey declared his shareholding in Helloworld before the tender process for the Australian Embassy in Washington's travel services commenced—
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will pause. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I think those interjecting behind the front bench may not realise that they're actually preventing their own frontbench from hearing the answer and me from hearing the answer. The Prime Minister has the call.
The tender process commenced with a register for expressions of interest advertised in August 2018. Mr Hockey has had no role in the tender process. He has declared his business interests in accordance with DFAT guidelines. This is just another grubby attempt by the Labor Party to distract attention from one very simple thing.
Dr Aly interjecting—
They know they have made a very big mistake in showing up the weakness of their own leader by forcing him to back down—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Cowan is warned, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned and, once again, so is the member for Gellibrand. The Prime Minister has the call.
They know they made a very big mistake in showing up the weakness of their own leader by forcing him to back down to them and to come into this place and weaken Australia's border security arrangements. They can come in here and throw all the mud they like, but one thing that's known well outside the Canberra bubble is that, when it comes to border protection, you can't trust Labor. You cannot trust Labor, and I'll tell you why. It is because they are so divided on the issue of border protection. That is why they failed so badly in government. They could not agree on this issue from one day to the next and that's why you can't trust Labor.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs: Will the minister update the House on the importance of maintaining Australia's strong and consistent border protection policies? Is the minister aware of any threats to the continued success of Operation Sovereign Borders, which I know personally has been so successful?
I thank the honourable member for Gilmore. In her electorate, people are concerned about border protection. She makes that very good point. In fact, as you move around the country, you see that Australians want strong border protection policies but they understand that, with the Labor Party, they have a very, very weak alternative.
The Leader of the Opposition quite often turns his back in question time when he doesn't want to hear what's being said, but he needs to hear this. I note in the media in the last 24 hours that the justification by the Leader of the Opposition for not nominating a shadow minister for home affairs is that the member for Blair is incapable of fulfilling the position. That is very abundantly clear to people on both sides of the House. I think we can agree on that. He is one of the architects of the disaster of the last week or so. He was for Christmas Island and then he was against Christmas Island. He's hopeless. So let's just put that to one side.
But who could fill the job if he is not able or capable to do it? The member for Corio once showed some interest in this space, but he has demonstrated in the last few hours that he doesn't want this job, and he doesn't want 55,000 Queenslanders to have a job either. It's an outrage. So who would you turn to? Who would be the Minister for Home Affairs and in control of Operation Sovereign Borders if the Labor Party were elected in May? There are a couple on the short list, because they've done the job before. Let's see how their track record went. There's the member for McMahon. On his watch 398 boats and 25 ,000 people arrived. Would you short list him for the job? I wouldn't have thought so. Who else is on this list? What about the member for Watson, our old favourite? He is there whispering away, pretending to talk about anything other than this. Under his watch, 83 boats and 6,600 people arrived and 1,100 children went into detention.
The position of the Labor Party deteriorates every single day. Do you know what they're proposing at the moment? They are proposing that people of bad character can come to our country. We have no power under Labor's law to prevent the transfer of a man accused of conducting a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl on Manus Island. He comes here, under the Labor proposal. At the time we're kicking out criminals, the Labor Party are bringing people in with questionable criminal backgrounds. We have no power to prevent the transfer of a man charged with four counts of sexual penetration of a minor—and the list goes on and on. He should be condemned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm reports that US ambassador Joe Hockey was contacted by Helloworld CEO and Liberal Party Treasurer Andrew Burnes? Mr Hockey then directed embassy staff to meet with a Helloworld subsidiary to discuss the embassy's travel arrangements, and the embassy staff were not aware of Joe Hockey's interest in Helloworld until after that meeting had taken place. Is the Prime Minister seriously telling the Australian people that this behaviour is completely acceptable?
Again, the member is misrepresenting the truth. He does this constantly. His mentor up there misrepresented the truth when he said he was going to deliver four surpluses and they turned out to be deficits. 'Deficits' is leaving the chamber, sadly. He's leaving the chamber, but I wish him all the best in his retirement.
I can advise that the Australian embassy staff meeting on 26 April 2017, I'm advised, was not in relation to the tender process. QBT was then and continues to be a travel provider for DFAT through a whole-of-government supply arrangement. Mr Hockey declared his business interests in Helloworld to embassy staff ahead of the meeting. I'm advised that Mr Hockey did not instruct staff to meet QBT or any other companies in relation to the tender, and, as part of normal business, Australian Embassy staff have met and corresponded with a wide range of travel providers to discuss the embassy's travel requirements. What this is, again, is just the Labor Party trying to distract attention with all these slurs, all these smears, all these grubby claims, because they know they have been caught out doing the wrong thing by the Australian people. Well outside this bubble here, whether it's out in Penrith or up in Townsville or over in Bunbury, they know one thing, and that is the Labor Party cannot be trusted on border protection, because the leader of the Labor Party is a weak soul when it comes to this issue. He cannot be trusted and his party is riven and divided on the issue of border protection. Only today we had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition agreeing with the member for Wentworth who had said—I wouldn't suggest the member for Wentworth takes geography lessons from the member for Sydney—that these people should not come to Christmas Island; they should come to Australia. They shouldn't come to Christmas Island; they should come to Australia. I can see the member for Sydney agrees with that, but, honestly, they should be taken to a place where we can be sure that—
The Prime Minister—
any persons who come to this place who shouldn't be are held in detention.
I just say to the Prime Minister—I know he's now concluded his answer to the question—that he's entitled to compare and contrast with a question, but to then stay on other subject matter is not in order. That's why I've—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
It wasn't really for your benefit, Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
I appreciate it nonetheless.
No, I didn't have you at all in mind! I was talking about the relevance of the Prime Minister's answer. That's why, on a couple of occasions, I've called the Prime Minister just, as it happens, as he was winding up his answer. I'm just flagging that now.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House how Australia's resource sector is supporting jobs in Queensland, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would put at risk the jobs created by Australian resource exports?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question.
An honourable member interjecting—
It is a very nice tie, thank you. Last year, Australia recorded a $22.2 billion trade surplus—the largest trade surplus Australia has ever achieved in a single calendar year. It's a consequence of the free trade agreements that the Liberal-National government put in place. A key contributor to this record surplus was an increase in resource exports. We saw thermal coal provided and produced a record $23 billion worth of export income for Australia. The great news is that these record exports have been terrific for jobs. In Queensland, in the resources sector in our state, it's created over 10,000 jobs over the past year. That represents one new job every 40 minutes created from resource sector exports.
I know everyone on this side of the chamber supports those resource sector jobs. Unfortunately, not everyone on that side of the chamber does. In fact, the member for Leichhardt asked me about alternative approaches. We see some alternative approaches. We saw this morning the member for Corio had views about his alternative approach and that of the Australian Labor Party. He said the global market for thermal coal has collapsed and that that's wonderful and a good thing. The Australian Labor Party thinks it's a good thing that they can throw on the junk pile 55,000 jobs in the resources sector. Move over, member for Hunter, there's a brand new cheerleader in town for the demise of resource jobs, and it's the member for Corio.
We see how divided the Australian Labor Party is with some of their union backers. We saw the CFMEU demanding Labor candidates pledge support for the coalmining industry. Following this weak Leader of the Opposition, we saw all 13 of Labor's candidates and MPs in Queensland's most marginal seats have all refused to comment. All of them joined the coalition of silence. We know this Leader of the Opposition is weak on border protection and we know he's too divided, too wedged and too weak on resources jobs as well. He won't stand up for jobs in the resources sector, but the coalition certainly will. The member for Herbert is part of the coalition of silence. She won't stand up for workers in her electorate. But I tell you what: LNP candidate Phillip Thompson will. The Labor candidate for Capricornia, despite being a member of the CFMEU, won't stand up for workers in that electorate. But I tell you what: the member for Capricornia will stand up for those workers. The Labor candidate for Dawson won't stand up for workers in that electorate, but the member for Dawson will stand up for all of those employees. The fact is that Labor's approach will see fewer jobs.
My question is to the Prime Minister—
Government members interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will pause just for a tick. Members on my right, I want to hear the question.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, it was revealed the finance minister received free flights to Singapore from Helloworld just before it was awarded a multimillion-dollar whole-of-government contract by the minister's own department.
Today, it was reported that US ambassador Joe Hockey, who has a million dollar shareholding in Helloworld, helped a Helloworld subsidiary lobby for an embassy travel contract. Is the Prime Minister confident that trips like the ones by the Minister for Home Affairs and Joe Hockey with Helloworld CEO and Liberal Treasurer—
The member's time has concluded. The member for Wakefield will resume his seat.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Does the member for Chifley want to leave before he hears the ruling? Unfortunately there was no question there—not on my hearing of it. The member for Moore will resume his seat. Members will cease interjecting. The member for Lilley, on a point of order?
I couldn't hear the member when he was asking the question. There was clearly something wrong with the sound. I believe he should be given the chance to ask it again.
I say to the member for Lilley that I regularly have difficulty hearing the questions because of the members in this chamber, but I could hear it clearly. The member for Lilley—
We could not hear it back here. It was not working.
The member for Moore will resume his seat. It's all right; I'm not going to forget him. I'm in a generous mood. The member for Wakefield can repeat his question. I'm just going to point out to him that he did, after the 30 seconds, sort of swim underwater for about another 15. I will let him repeat, in good faith, what he just read to the House. If it's a different question, I will sit him down.
It's the same one. My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, it was revealed the finance minister received free flights to Singapore from Helloworld just before it was awarded a whole-of-government contract by the minister's own department.
Today, it's been reported that US ambassador Joe Hockey, who has a million-dollar shareholding in Helloworld, helped a Helloworld subsidiary lobby for an embassy contract. Is the Prime Minister confident that trips like the ones that the Minister for Home Affairs and Joe Hockey, and Helloworld— (Time expired)
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! There was no issue with the microphone there! And, again, there was no question.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government is guaranteeing the economic security of all Australians who have saved for their retirement? Is the Treasurer aware of any risks to these savings posed by higher-taxation methods of managing the economy?
I thank the member for Moore for his question and congratulate him on being able to ask a question properly!
The member for Moore is fighting hard for the more than 6,000 constituents in his electorate who will be affected by Labor's big $55 billion retiree tax. The constituents in his electorate, like the constituents in electorates across this chamber, could not believe it when the member for McMahon went on 7.30 earlier this week, arrogantly dismissing the concerns of more than one million Australians and saying that the Labor Party would not change their retiree tax one bit—not one bit. The member for McMahon said that despite all the deep concerns across this country the Labor Party will ignore those concerns and arrogantly dismissed them, and said that if people don't like Labor's retiree tax, 'Well, then don't vote Labor'. That's what he said.
The reality is that the people who are going to be hit hardest by Labor's retiree tax are those on lower incomes. Over 80 per cent have a taxable income under $37,000, and those hardest hit it will be women. Over half of them are women, two-thirds of whom are over the age of 60 and about half of whom are either single or widowed. That is the effect of Labor's policy
The Labor Party says that their policy doesn't apply to pensioners. Well, that's a lie! That's an absolute lie! Their pensioner guarantee is not worth the paper it's written on, because if you were a pensioner before 28 March last year and then you set up a self-managed super fund after that date you will be affected by Labor's policy. If you were in a self-managed superfund before 28 March last year and you became a pensioner after that day you will be affected by Labor's policy, and there are around 50,000 Australian pensioners who are going to be affected by Labor's policy.
There are many people who are hit by Labor's policy, including Alan from Ballina, in the electorate of Richmond. He says: 'I'm a 76-year-old self-funded retiree. My gross income has been slightly in excess of the income test for a full or partial age pension and therefore I have not qualified for pensioner benefits. But as a result of Labor's policy, if it's adopted, I will lose $2,580 a year.' That's real money to real people.
There is only one side of politics, and it's this side of politics, the Liberal and National parties in government under this Prime Minister, that will stand by retirees and not allow the Labor Party to hit them with a retiree tax.
My question is to the Prime Minister. It's reported that an Australian foreign affairs official expressed concerns about a potential conflict of interest after Joe Hockey directed embassy staff to meet with a subsidiary of Helloworld, a company in which Mr Hockey has a million-dollar shareholding. When did this official first express concerns about Mr Hockey's conflict of interest? Will the Prime Minister undertake to table within 24 hours all relevant documents about this matter in this House?
The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I represent the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives, so I'll answer this question. The simple truth is that, if there's been such a report—
No, I'm not satisfied with that. I need—
He's flicked it to me.
Okay. That's fine, the Prime Minister has indicated—
I'm happy to take the question, Prime Minister. We always check every single claim the Labor Party make about any sort of report, especially in the media, before we decide whether it's fact or not. That has been our tradition in this place. As the minister who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that we have every confidence in Joe Hockey as our ambassador in Washington DC. He is a former distinguished member of this House. He's a former distinguished Treasurer who did a great deal more to get this economy back on track than any member of the Labor Party ever has. One of the reasons that we are reaping the benefits today of budget surpluses and a strong economy is the work that Joe Hockey did when he was a distinguished member of this House.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Shortland!
The first point I would make is that we have every confidence in the integrity of Joe Hockey, our ambassador in Washington. The second point I would make is that we have had absolutely no confidence in the integrity of many members of the Labor Party over the many years that I've been in this place. We are being lectured about fiscal rectitude by the Labor Party—the party of Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi; the party of Rex Jackson, if you want to go back a few decades; the party of Craig Thomson; the party that required a royal commission—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
to get out of the Leader of the Opposition a donation that he'd forgotten all about. It took eight years. It is the party of John Setka, whom they revered and put into a position of importance in the Labor Party, and of Ian Macdonald. There were almost as many people from the Labor Party ministry in prison as out of it after the Keneally government!
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
So we will not be lectured by the Labor Party about integrity or about fiscal rectitude in this place. We all know what's going on here. The Prime Minister nailed it earlier: the Labor Party have had a shocker of a couple of weeks. They thought the big story out of this fortnight would be the Canberra bubble. They thought it would be about votes in the House of Representatives—who was up and who was down. But it isn't. The story out of this fortnight is that Labor is weak on border protection and cannot be trusted.
My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General provide an update to the House on how weakened border protection will impact upon our justice system?
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Lyons can leave under 94(a).
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
I thank the member for his question. The government's position has been very clear. It is that Christmas Island is the appropriate response to the laws that Labor passed. There are two essential reasons for that. The first is that, under our government, the combination of policies of temporary protection visas, boat turnbacks and rigorous offshore processing has seen us get our borders under control and close 19 detention centres, with the end effect being that there are only a handful of onshore detention centres. Their capacity is constrained. Secondly, as the Minister for Home Affairs has pointed out, there are very real implications for our onshore justice system in transferring persons onto the mainland where we are aware that the person is charged with or accused of a serious offence or we have reasonable grounds to believe that they are of bad character.
Labor have passed laws that would require the transfer of hundreds of people onshore, removing the minister's discretion. Yet they themselves cannot agree as to where this onshore processing should occur. The opposition leader says Christmas Island is 'fine by me'. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition doesn't appear to share his enthusiasm or support for Christmas Island. The member for Corio says it's silly. So they've had four positions in 48 hours: Christmas Island is unhinged and not supported; it's fine and supported; it's not fine and not supported; and it's not fine and silly.
We have a clear position that there is only one response. Their position would depend on who is the minister of the day, and that is curious, because what now is revealed is that they are going into a full election without letting the Australian people know who the minister they would have in charge of border protection would actually be. But don't worry, because the Leader of the Opposition assured us they had 'several good people'. Maybe we should have a look at the frontrunner at the moment, which is the member for Blair—and what he said yesterday provides a sobering reality check on what border protection would look like under members opposite. The member for Blair said:
There is no difference between Labor and Liberal …
… … …
A Shorten Labor government will deploy the full force of the ring of steel …
That's what he said. Don't worry about border protection; the member for Blair is armed with his ring of steel, his hammer of Thor, his golden lasso! We can all sleep—fitfully—at night because the member for Blair is there! What really is their policy over there?
There have been three things that have kept our borders safe. The first is temporary protection visas. They are opposed to them. The second is offshore processing. They have now made that onshore processing on the instruction of doctors. The third thing is boat turn-backs. What do they really think about boat turn-backs? Here's a vignette from a previous immigration minister opposite. The member for McMahon said:
The evidence is overwhelming that turning back the boats is … neither safe nor viable.
To be fair to the member for Blair, they did workshop 'ring of steel', and his preference was actually 'semicircle of strongness', but that got dropped!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Nine reports:
In Mr Hockey's case, DFAT documents seen by The Age and Sydney MorningHerald show that he asked embassy staff to set up a meeting between Minister Counsellor Justin McPhillips, who oversees the Washington embassy’s operations, and an executive from Helloworld subsidiary Qantas Business Travel …
Does the Prime Minister deny such documents exist?
The Prime Minister is asked about conflict of interest in that question. Let me say this about conflict of interest. The Labor Party, since we got into power in 2013, have opposed every single attempt we've made to make the unions accountable in this country. The Australian Building and Construction Commission—
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
A point of order on direct relevance. The minister has referred to a part of the question that wasn't in the question at all.
Just to assist me, do you mind reading it again, because I missed the first couple of words?
The structure of it was a question to the Prime Minister, 'Nine reports, and I quote'—
'Nine reports'—that was what I didn't hear.
There was then the quote, and the question was:
Does the Prime Minister deny such documents exist?
That was what the member for Rankin asked.
I'm just going to say to the Leader of the House that was a very tight question. When I sat the Leader of the House down, he had strayed beyond the subject matter of the question. But I call the Leader of the House.
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
The member for Hotham is not assisting. The Leader of the House has the call.
If such documents exist and if such reports exist, I'm sure that we can find those things out when we actually investigate the efficacy of this question. I'm not going to simply accept that at face value—that because the opposition says something it makes it true. We see time and time again that that in fact is not the case. The Labor Party draw long bows, make exaggerations and use all sorts of means to try and twist the truth, and I've seen that for a quarter of a century in this place. So I'm hardly going to simply accept what the member for Rankin says and respond to it as though it's factual.
But I thought generally the question was an implication of conflict of interest—conflict of interest for our ambassador in Washington DC. As I said before, in my answer, the government have absolute confidence in our ambassador in Washington DC, and we're not going to take lectures from the Labor Party about integrity in politics. As I said in my previous answer, which I'm referring to, the Labor Party has a very long charge sheet when it comes to inappropriate behaviour in state and national parliaments.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I've made it clear that the Leader of the House needs to relate his answer to the subject matter in the question. He was doing that until just those last 15 or 20 seconds. I'm happy to call him again or just move to the next question.
I think we'll move to the next question.
We'll move to the next question. That sounds like a good idea.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how a strong economy and housing market benefits hardworking Australian families, including in my electorate of La Trobe? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches that would not deliver these benefits?
I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. He knows the importance of Australia's $7 trillion residential housing market—a market that's absolutely critical to jobs through construction, a market that's absolutely critical to small business because many people in small business will mortgage the family home to invest and to grow their business. It's vitally important to the family balance sheet because, for many families, the greatest asset they'll ever own is the family home. It's also important to have stability in the housing market for our AAA credit rating. What puts at risk our AAA credit rating and what puts at risk the stability in the housing market is Labor's $32 billion new housing tax. Two-thirds of the people that it will impact currently negative gear. Two-thirds of those have a taxable income under $87,000. 1.3 million people currently negative gear.
These are not wealthy people; these people put aside a little bit of money every month so that they can make an investment—like Robert and Cassia, both of whom are 31 years of age. They live in Cranbourne North in Melbourne's south-east. They said they plucked up the courage to buy a two-bedroom apartment at the time that their first daughter was born. Their net rental loss is around $5,000 a year. Together they earn around $160,000 a year. He's in IT; she's in sales. They said: 'The theory is not to sell the apartment any time soon and get it when we're young enough so that, when we retire, we can completely pay it off. Negative gearing makes it a more financially viable option.'
These are among the many people across Australia who will see the value of their investments go down as a result of Labor's policy. What is more, anybody who owns their own home in Australia will see it worth less under Labor's new housing tax, and anyone who rents their house will end up paying more under Labor's housing tax. In fact, there are more than two million Australians aged 20-34 who currently rent, and they will be hit with a new housing tax and higher rent as a result of the Labor Party's policy.
The Labor Party should have listened to the member for Lilley when he was Treasurer. He said it would be economically disastrous to touch negative gearing. Now the member for McMahon, as part of his $200 billion of new taxes, is going to take a sledgehammer to peoples' housing prices and increase rents. Only the coalition can be trusted to keep taxes low. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister confident that trips like the one by the Minister for Home Affairs and Joe Hockey with Helloworld CEO and Liberal Treasurer Mr Andrew Burnes to Las Vegas were paid at the full commercial rate?
Again the member comes here and just makes assertions and then he asks me to respond as if those assertions are true.
How dare he ask a question!
It's said to me, 'How dare he ask a question!' He's not asking a question; he's making an assertion about something he hasn't even established as a fact. On that basis, I don't agree necessarily with the presumption of the question, and, therefore, on what basis should I allow a member to simply come to the despatch box and cast aspersions on people in this chamber, people in the other chamber and former members of the chamber simply because the Labor Party wants to distract attention from the fact that they've come into this place and undermined Australia's border protection regime? We know because they've been boasting around the media for some time that they have had this little issue for some time in the drawer and, when the pressure's on, they pull it out. I think the public can see this for what it is: it's just smear.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the success of the government's border security policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to border protection that may jeopardise the sovereignty of Australia's borders?
I thank the member for her question. We know about Labor's law to end offshore processing that was so shamefully passed through the House last week. We know that under Labor 8,000 children were forcibly placed in detention—
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
It's true—8,000 children were forcibly placed in detention. That's what you did.
The member for Eden-Monaro!
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The member for Eden-Monaro is now warned.
We know that under Labor, tragically, 1,200 people drowned at sea. Let's go through this law to end offshore processing, of which we learn more and more. The first thing is: we know that, under Labor, doctors don't have to be based in the same country as the patient; they could be in Dapto, Devonport or Dungog. A question for Labor: why?
We know that under Labor's law the people who are to be transferred don't even to have to be sick. The doctors merely have to state that they should come to Australia for an assessment. Why? Why is that in Labor's law?
We also know that under Labor's law the minister has no power to stop a referral unless someone is in breach of the ASIO Act or has been to jail for 12 months. That was Labor's amendment (14). They chose it. They actually wrote it down. They got out a pen and wrote down: 'Unless they've breached the ASIO Act or they've been in jail for 12 months they can come to Australia and there's nothing the government can do to stop it.' That's what the shadow minister did. That's what the opposition did.
They also say in their bill that one doctor can order an unlimited number of people—an unlimited number of people—to come to Australia and, unless the person is in breach of the ASIO Act or has been jailed for 12 months, there's nothing the government can do to stop it. It's extraordinary, and they must be accountable for all these questions.
And now, this morning, the shadow minister said the legislation applies to people currently in Manus and Nauru. It turns out that's wrong too, because in the legislation the Labor Party have defined what's known as a 'relevant transitory person'. That includes people who have already resettled in Papua New Guinea, who are not even on Manus Island. There are 58 people who have resettled in Papua New Guinea, who have been granted refugee visas by Papua New Guinea—who are not on Manus Island at all. Under this law, they can access the medical transfer provisions, and I am advised that they are already seeking to do so—58 people who are not on Manus Island at all. The shadow minister clearly does not understand the legislation which he so shamefully passed through this parliament. It just goes to show what happens when political opportunism trumps national security and sensible governance. It's a disgraceful— (Time expired)
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House
(1) notes that:
(a) yesterday, it was revealed the Finance Minister received free flights to Singapore from Helloworld, which he booked by calling the CEO of this ASX listed company directly, just before it was awarded a multimillion dollar whole-of-government contract by the Minister's own Department;
(b) today, it's been reported that US Ambassador Joe Hockey – who has a million dollar shareholding in Helloworld – helped a Helloworld subsidiary lobby for the Embassy's travel contract;
(c) the CEO of Helloworld and one of its largest shareholders Andrew Burnes is a Liberal Party heavyweight and current Liberal Party Treasurer, with connections to a number of Liberal Party politicians;
(d) the Finance Minister told Senate Estimates yesterday that he had "a close personal relationship" with Mr Burnes;
(e) Mr Burnes was previously a colleague of the now Prime Minister during the Prime Minister's time at Tourism Australia;
(f) since being awarded Government contracts, the share price of Helloworld has skyrocketed, making shareholders like Mr Hockey and Mr Burnes rich; and
(g) this morning, it was reported that the Herald Sun asked almost all of the 82 Liberal MPs in Parliament whether they had received free travel from Helloworld, but only 14 said they had not; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to investigate and report to the House how far this Helloworld scandal reaches into his Government.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Rankin from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) yesterday, it was revealed the Finance Minister received free flights to Singapore from Helloworld, which he booked by calling the CEO of this ASX listed company directly, just before it was awarded a multimillion dollar whole-of-government contract by the Minister's own Department;
(b) today, it's been reported that US Ambassador Joe Hockey—who has a million dollar shareholding in Helloworld – helped a Helloworld subsidiary lobby for the Embassy's travel contract;
(c) the CEO of Helloworld and one of its largest shareholders Andrew Burnes is a Liberal Party heavyweight and current Liberal Party Treasurer, with connections to a number of Liberal Party politicians;
(d) the Finance Minister told Senate Estimates yesterday that he had 'a close personal relationship' with Mr Burnes;
(e) Mr Burnes was previously a colleague of the now Prime Minister during the Prime Minister's time at Tourism Australia;
(f) since being awarded Government contracts, the share price of Helloworld has skyrocketed, making shareholders like Mr Hockey and Mr Burnes rich; and
(g) this morning, it was reported that the Herald Sun asked almost all of the 82 Liberal MPs in Parliament whether they had received free travel from Helloworld, but only 14 said they had not; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to investigate and report to the House how far this Helloworld scandal reaches into his Government.
These are very serious issues that we're raising in the parliament. They are far too serious to be dismissed, to be laughed off and to be ignored by this arrogant and out-of-touch government.
This is a very Liberal scandal that we're dealing with. It has all of the stink and all of the stench of a very Liberal scandal. It's got all the mates at the top end of town, all the insider deals that lock out ordinary working people, and all of the ingredients of what we have come to expect from this government opposite, which always governs for the top end of the town at the expense of people who work and struggle in this country. It's a very, very Liberal scandal.
What we've seen today in this House is the alternative universe that those opposite inhabit. The alternative universe that those opposite inhabit is where it's entirely normal, when you want to book the 3.30 flight out of Perth, for you to ring up the CEO of an ASX listed company, and where you don't actually notice when someone else picks up a $3,000 tab for you—where you don't notice that it hasn't come out of your credit card. The alternative universe that those opposite occupy is where there's one set of rules for their rich Liberal Party mates and another set of rules for ordinary Australians in communities that we represent right around this country.
There are so many things today that the Prime Minister and his sidekick, his offsider, the member for Sturt, were unable to explain. There were so many things they were unable to explain. They couldn't provide a simple answer to a simple question about whether the documents exist which prove that Mr Hockey asked one of the embassy officials to take a meeting with the company at the centre of this scandal. When the member for Sturt was asked about this, he basically told the House, 'Look, when we get around to checking it out, we'll see how we go.' That's not good enough. The Australian people deserve answers about this latest grubby scandal that is engulfing the government that sits opposite us today.
There are so many aspects to this but, from his answers today, there's a lot of explaining that the Prime Minister needs to do. He has scurried out of the House. He has gone to hide in his office. He said today:
I'm advised that Mr Hockey did not instruct staff to meet QBT or any other companies in relation to the tender, and, as part of normal business …
And what the Prime Minister needs to explain when he next speaks, or when the member for Sturt does, is why he is claiming that Mr Hockey didn't request embassy staff to meet with QBT at all. This is a very serious issue here. The Prime Minister is denying something of which there are reports of documents which exist from officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That is a very, very serious matter and that's why we need to suspend standing orders, to get to the bottom of these very, very important issues.
Everybody in this House and everybody who has followed this scandal knows where it began. It began with the Minister for Finance booking the 3:30 out of Perth or whatever it was by ringing the CEO of a company, not understanding when the $3,000 bill was paid for by someone else, despite the fact those opposite are all chasing people on government payments, aren't they? They notice every cent that goes into a recipient's account, don't they, but $3,000 doesn't come out of the Finance Minister's account and it's no big deal. That's the alternative universe those opposite occupy.
We know where this scandal began but we don't yet know where it ends. And I don't think those opposite know where it ends yet either. There are a lot more questions to be asked and a lot more questions to be answered. What really gave it away in question time today, when we started asking about the travel arrangements between Mr Burnes and others, were the ashen faces right along the frontbench. All these people were desperately hoping the next question wasn't to them. I saw it. The member for Flinders, I thought, was particularly revealing. I'd love to know more about that, but we'll get to all of those questions in due course.
Those opposite have started talking a lot about a chum bucket, haven't they? This scandal, which I'm going to call 'chumgate', involves so many Liberal Party chums, doesn't it? So many Liberal Party chums were involved in chumgate. Right up and down the frontbench and beyond, all the way into the cheap seats, there are a lot of chums involved in this scandal. And we're going to get to the bottom of chumgate, aren't we? We're going to get to the bottom of this scandal, because the only difference between a chum bucket and the Liberal Party is the bucket itself. There are a lot of chums involved in this scandal.
Time won't permit me going to all the other reasons why this is important but just think about it for a moment. Even in the last few months, when we were talking about the awarding of big government contracts, those opposite just can't help themselves—half a billion dollars to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation they didn't ask for; half a billion dollars to Paladin group, which is registered to a beach shack on Kangaroo Island or some such. They can't get it right yet they want us to trust them to make a good decision on offshore visa processing. And when the Prime Minister's own friend is intimately involved in one of the bids, we know how this movie ends. We know how they roll on that side of the House when it comes to the awarding of big government contracts, and the Australian people are very worried about it.
While all this is going on, while this Liberal government go out of their way to look after their mates at the top end of the town, the Australian people just don't get a look in. Just today, as the shadow Treasurer, the shadow employment minister and others have spoken about, we got a wages figure out today—0.5 per cent; annual, 2.3 per cent. In this country, we have historically low wages growth. We have stagnant wages. People aren't getting a look in. They're not being rewarded for their work. Everything is going up except for wages. Childcare costs are up, power bills are up, people are under-employed, people are in insecure work, and those opposite spend all their time working out how they can work the angle—little insider deals for their rich Liberal Party mates—and doesn't that just say everything about those opposite? If only those opposite spent as much time caring about insecure work or stagnant wages as they spend trying to do insider deals for rich Liberal Party mates, the whole country would be better off. That's what this is about, at the end of the day.
This is a government which is so horrendously out of touch and whose priorities are so warped that when we get a wages number like we did today and have been getting for some months, when we get all the things about insecure work and underemployment, falling consumer confidence, bad business conditions—all of these things that really matter to the Australian economy—what are they up to? They're flying around on free flights, ringing up their mates getting insider deals, doing deals, awarding big government contracts to people that they are intimately involved with in the Liberal Party.
That's why standing orders need to be suspended. We know where this began, but we don't yet know where it ends, and we are going to pursue it until the Australian people get the answers that they need and deserve.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Of course the government will not be agreeing to the suspension of standing orders. That was really one of the weakest performances I have seen in this place in a very long time. This is the man who is apparently the great white hope of the Queensland right wing, the member for Rankin, but his performance was enough to make himself cry—as we know has been the case in the past when he hasn't been able to get his own way, as was exposed by a previous Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. This is one of the weakest cases I have ever seen in this House for condemning a minister or, in this case, the ambassador to Washington DC. It's a straight-out smear and a straight-out slur.
What the Labor Party have been doing in the press gallery, all day today, for anybody who wanted to hear, was bragging about how they've had this story for months. They've known about the Helloworld story for a long time, and they were just waiting to drop it to distract from their own problems, to distract from their woes—which they've created themselves—in the last few weeks. They thought, in coming back to Canberra, they were going to have the government on toast, but they were completely mistaken because the Canberra bubble is not the Australian public. That is not what the people of Australia are talking about. They're not fussed about whether the government doesn't get enough votes for an absolute majority to stop a suspension of standing orders or to pass it. They couldn't care less about that. What they're talking about in the suburbs and on the main streets of Australia are the retiree tax, the housing tax and the $200 billion of taxes that the Labor Party wants to inflict on the Australian economy, on small businesses and on the couples and individuals that the Treasurer has been outlining in question time today and yesterday. They are frightened of a Labor government getting into power.
Pensioners and retirees are frightened of a Labor government getting into power, because they have fixed incomes. When they get to that stage of their life, they work out precisely their standard of living and how they're going to be able to live. They put a little bit aside for their grandchildren for Christmas and birthdays. They put a bit aside for their caravan and camping trips. They put a bit aside for charities. If you talk to almost any person who's on the board of a charity in Australia, they will tell you that, if they look at the breakdown of donations to their charity, there are a huge number of small amounts of money—$25, $50, $100, $200—donated by older Australians, retirees and pensioners, who think that, because they live in the greatest country in the world and because they've done well and they've been able to look after themselves in their retirement, they should give something back, to a charity. They will be the first expenses to go because of Labor's retiree tax.
Let's just turn to the issue itself, this pathetic case that was put by the member for Rankin. The facts are that the ambassador to Washington declared his shareholding in Helloworld before the tender process for the Australian embassy in Washington travel services commenced. The tender process commenced with a register for expressions of interest advertised in August 2018. Mr Hockey has had no role in the tender process. He declared his business interests in accordance with the DFAT guidelines. The Australian embassy staff meeting with QBT on 26 April 2017 was not in relation to the tender process. QBT was then, and continues to be, a travel provider for DFAT through whole-of-government supplier arrangements. Mr Hockey declared his business interest in Helloworld to embassy staff ahead of that meeting. He did not instruct staff to meet QBT or any other companies in relation to the tender. As part of the normal business, Australian embassy staff have met and corresponded with a range of travel providers to discuss the embassy's travel requirements. They are the facts.
Helloworld has put out a statement today to the Australian stock exchange—not to The Guardian, not to the ABC, not to the Fairfax press and not to the Labor Party machine men who are trying to distract the Australian public from their complete failure on border protection and taxes. No, it was to the Australian stock exchange. There is a very high standard required if you declare something to the Australian stock exchange.
An honourable member: What did they declare?
I will tell you what they declared. They said:
At no time has Ambassador Hockey or Helloworld CEO Andrew Burnes discussed the DFAT tender and neither Mr Hockey nor Mr Burnes have had any involvement in the tender process.
Mr Burnes did not request the meeting with DFAT personnel in the United States.
It's absolutely clear that what Labor has tried to do is to come up with a farrago of lies, a tissue campaign, to try to create a smear and a slur to distract the people from the real issues that are coming at this next election. The real issues of the next election are who do you trust to run the Australian economy; who do you trust to deliver a budget surplus, which Labor has never delivered since 1989; who do you trust on border protection and to protect our borders so that the ADF doesn't have to work on the jobs in the northern reaches, protecting our borders, and can actually get on with the job that they're trained for; and who do you trust to deliver the services that Australians expect and the infrastructure that they require in a modern economy? It isn't the Labor Party.
It is the Liberal and National parties, the parties that have a very clear record over many decades of fixing the messes that Labor creates when they unfortunately get the chance to be in government. It happened with the Whitlam government. It happened with the Keating and Hawke governments. It happened with the Rudd and Gillard governments. It's very important that this election is decided on the issues that matter to people in the street, in the main streets of the country towns and the suburbs of Australia, not inside this Canberra bubble, which the Labor Party revel in and the Australian people don't give two hoots about.
Finally, it is the height of audacity for the Labor Party to try to lecture the Liberal and National parties about fiscal rectitude and integrity. It took a royal commission for the Leader of the Opposition to declare donations of very high value that he had suddenly forgotten about as soon as he received them. We have all been in campaigns; we know how to raise money. Tens of thousands of dollars is a very large donation. I'm always happy when I get a $500 donation from a small business person who wants to stop the Labor Party getting into office. Tens of thousands of dollars is a very significant donation, but the member for Maribyrnong forgot all about it. It took eight years and a royal commission for the Leader of the Opposition to be forced to declare what is required of every member of the House and the political parties that we represent.
We're not going to be lectured to by the member for Maribyrnong about these kinds of issues of financial integrity. We're not going to be lectured to by the Labor Party. In the Keneally government, they ended up with almost as many people in prison in the ministry as out of it by the end of their government. There was Ian Macdonald, Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid, although not all of those people have gone to prison. These people were exposed by ICAC for the most heinous activities when they were in government in the New South Wales government. Those opposite would like that all to be forgotten, because they have a New South Wales election coming up in a few weeks' time. But if they want to put integrity back on the political agenda in New South Wales, go right ahead. The Berejiklian government would love to have that debate reheated, about Eddie Obeid, Joe Tripodi and Ian Macdonald.
There's the relationship of those opposite with the union moment, with people like John Setka, the CFMMEU and Joe McDonald. Kevin Rudd turned his back on unions like that. Kevin Rudd threw Joe McDonald out of the Labor Party. The current Leader of the Opposition has brought all of those people into the centre of decision-making in the Labor Party. They're deciding on preselections and who should sit in this place. They're deciding on policy. In Victoria, they were brought in to give the Leader of the Opposition the numbers he needed for himself and his faction to take over the Victorian Labor Party, and to elect people like the member for Corio, who's had a big run in the park today. I'm not sure he'll get such a big run in the future, since he decided to put 50,000 jobs in the mining and resources sector in Queensland and elsewhere at risk by saying he wanted the mining and resources sector to collapse internationally, apparently in order to protect the climate.
The Labor Party have had a shocker in the last fortnight. They've had a shocker. The cockiness of the Labor Party in the last six to 12 months—they were so certain they were going to be in the ministerial wing. We're very much looking forward to the election. We believe the Australian public will want to re-elect a government that delivers budget surpluses, low taxes and more jobs.
Standing orders should be suspended to enable this motion to be moved because we do need to know just how deep in it this government is—how deep it is in the Helloworld scandal. The coalition government are only in it for themselves. Today, we've had more shocking revelations concerning the Helloworld scandal. Not only is the current finance minister, Senator Cormann, knee deep in this mess but so is the former Treasurer, now ambassador to the United States. That's the same Mr Hockey who famously declared in 2014 that with the election of the Abbott government, 'the age of entitlement is over'. Well, it's well and truly alive with this government, particularly the government frontbench.
The Prime Minister, in his answers in question time, did not go close to justifying the reported conduct of Mr Hockey as our ambassador to the United States. According to the Leader of the House, they have not even begun to investigate the allegations that have appeared in the media. Let's be clear about this: Mr Hockey is one of the 20 largest shareholders in the relevant company. He's one of the 20 largest shareholders, with over $1 million worth of shares. I just want to go back to what the Prime Minister claimed in question time. The Leader of the House repeated this same claim. I'll read it out:
I'm advised that Mr Hockey did not instruct staff to meet QBT or any other companies in relation to the tender, and, as part of normal business …
I'm sorry to say that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have been misadvised.
I'm going to read from the correspondence from embassy staff, which the Prime Minister should bring in tomorrow if he actually cares at all about probity in government or advising this House properly. This is what the correspondence from embassy staff says: 'Ambassador Hockey has asked that I set up a meeting while you are in Washington on Wednesday. Would you be available at 10.30 am? Hopefully the ambassador can join the meeting, but the minister councillor, Justin McPhillips, who is in charge of the administration at the embassy, will definitely meet with you. If you could advise the names of all those who could come to the meeting, I will advise security.'
An opposition member: Oops!
Uh-oh! As my colleagues behind me are saying, oops! It's actually something the Prime Minister now needs to actually investigate.
Let's think for a moment about Senator Cormann in the other place, who accidently, he claims, took a free flight with his family to Singapore and failed to notice that his credit card hadn't been charged. He pretends that it's totally normal to call up the CEO of a company in order to book your personal travel. Please! Senator Cormann says he's a friend. Well, it's the same CEO, this friend, who is the federal treasurer of the Liberal Party; the same friend, the same CEO, who has donated more than $500,000 to the Liberal Party; and the same CEO whose company share price has soared 170 per cent, I'm told, since the company started to receive government contracts.
This government has form. This government has plenty of form. Let's think about the member for Dickson, who's happy to dole out visas to au pairs for his mates and continues to ignore very serious constitutionally eligibility questions about himself stemming from taxpayer subsidies from his own family childcare business.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House reckons I might run out of material. No risk of that! There is plenty. Let's talk about the member for Fadden, who used his previous ministerial office to help a Liberal donor on a big deal in China. He lost his job for that under former Prime Minister Turnbull, but he's back. He has been rewarded by his flatmate, the Prime Minister, with the role of Assistant Treasurer—not to mention the $40,000 home internet bill. Then we could talk about Senator McKenzie, who happened to buy an apartment while on taxpayer funded travel entitlements. And who can forgot former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and her helicopter ride? It's not surprising that the backbench are following their lead. Just look at the member for Goldstein and his conduct as chair of the House Economics Committee or the current member for Dunkley, who used his position as a member of parliament to spruik a company he subsequently bought shares in.
We definitely need to suspend standing orders. The Prime Minister needs to come clean on just how far this scandal— (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has concluded.
The question is that the motion moved by the member for Rankin be agreed to.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The member for McEwen has brought to my attention that the former member of the Victorian parliament and police minister, Andre Haermeyer is in the gallery today. Welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 27 of 2018-19, entitled Closing the Gap: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; Productivity Commission.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
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.
And while I have the microphone, the Manager of Opposition Business and I had already agreed that the MPI would finish just before 4 o'clock in order to allow the member for Jagajaga to give her valedictory speech unimpeded. We know that family and friends often come for these occasions. Because of the debate that we've just had, we've also agreed to limit the MPI speakers to one per side, which will take us through to 4 o'clock.
I have received letters from the honourable member for Gorton and the honourable member for Kennedy proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion. As required by standing order 46, I've selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Gorton, namely:
The government only acting in its own interest and not for the interest of working Australians who are struggling with record low wages growth.
I therefore call on all 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—
This is an important matter. It's an important matter that should be debated in this place because, as we know, the government are not focused on the needs of the Australian people and they're not focused on Australian workers, and for that reason we've seen the lowest wage growth in at least 25 years.
What we've had over the last five years is a government that have shown no regard for this major problem. We've seen growing job insecurity, we've seen low wages and we've seen workers seeking to bargain but failing to get a decent outcome. Therefore, I think it's incumbent on the government to answer as to why they don't see this as a priority.
We've heard, throughout question time today and indeed during the procedural debate we just had about suspending standing orders, a government that's entirely focused on their self-interest—a government that is actually acting improperly. There are clearly serious allegations about impropriety involving senior ministers and members of parliament that form the government. That's their focus—whether they can get freebies or free travel and whether they can involve themselves in receiving benefits, at least with the perception that people are benefiting in terms of getting government contracts. These are the things that seem to be involving the government benches.
Meanwhile, I'm happy to say that Labor is focused on issues that matter to the Australian people and, in particular, working Australians. Firstly, we know that we need to see a response to the penalty rates decision by the Fair Work Commission. As we've said now for more than two years, that decision will be felt keenly and harshly amongst retail and hospitality workers—they'll see a real loss in their income. In fact, they've been seeing cuts to their income since 1 July 2017—a cut then, a cut last year and, if we don't see a change of government and a change of the effect of that decision, a further cut for 700,000 hardworking Australians on 1 July this year, because the cuts continue with respect to that decision.
Labor has made clear that, if elected, we will restore penalty rates as they were on 30 June 2017. That's the first thing we should do in a material way—restore penalty rates and provide support for hardworking retail and hospitality workers. That's the first thing we want to do, and we'll seek to do that. In fact, we call upon the government to look to do that, but we don't expect them to be too concerned about it.
We certainly also want to look at removing other forms of exploitation in the labour market. We've seen sham contracting grow as a form of exploitation and abuse in the labour market, where we have workers who are deemed not to be employees being paid sometimes one-third the minimum wage. We have people in the so-called 'gig economy'—really, it's conventional work sold on apps—who are actually being provided with $7 or $8 an hour. As I say, that's almost a third of the minimum wage, and it's going on and it's becoming a prevalent problem in sectors of our economy—something we will deal with by cracking down on sham contracting and ensuring that legitimate independent contracting is permissible but not this ability to avoid industrial obligations by paying people below the minimum wage. We'll attend to that.
We also want to stop the rorts that go on with respect to bargaining. People need to understand that it was indeed Labor that supported collective bargaining. But what's happened in the last 25 or so years is we've seen a decline in bargaining in workplaces. We have employers refusing to bargain effectively and in good faith with their workforce and their unions. What has happened over the last decade is a decline in enterprise bargaining and a greater reliance—in fact a 50 per cent increase in reliance—upon minimum awards. This is one of the reasons why we're seeing the lowest wage growth in a generation: because there are fewer decent outcomes for working people as a result of bargaining. Labor, if elected, will ensure that we have a fairer bargaining system, a system that will disallow employers from trying to unilaterally terminate enterprise agreements, which they've been doing increasingly in sectors of our economy. We will prohibit that behaviour. We will compel them to work with their workers and, indeed, unions, to bargain in good faith. And we will ensure that there'll be other changes to the current laws that will provide opportunities for these decent outcomes.
When you have wages that are flatlining but profits that are rising, when you see productivity in sectors of our economy improving but workers getting none of the fair share of that productivity, you know something is broken. But there is not one policy that this government's enacted that actually goes to whether workers deserve a fair share of that dividend. There's not one announcement by any minister—including, of course, the Prime Minister—to deal with stagnant wage growth, to deal with the fact that they're getting a lower proportion of GDP. The labour share of the GDP is falling. For that reason, we need to attend to that. As I say, through those reforms we'll look to do that.
In the MPI today, I indicated one of the reasons why they failed to do that is that the government are focused on their own interests. In particular, I refer to Senator Cash and other ministers who have failed to act responsibly in dealing with serious matters that are now before the courts.
You're sounding generous.
I may be sounding generous, but I'll go to the more substantive matters that have occurred this week. What we saw this week in estimates is quite remarkable. On Monday this week, we saw the Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police make very clear that, whilst they sought witness statements from the minister at the table, Minister Keenan, and Minister Cash, neither the Minister for Human Services nor Minister Cash—
He's lying! He's lying!
The minister will withdraw.
Regardless of the facts, I withdraw.
I want to get onto his behaviour in terms of his failure to respond. This minister was the Minister for Justice when he refused to cooperate with the Australian Federal Police. The Australian Federal Police sought a witness statement from the then Minister for Justice and he failed to provide that witness statement. It wasn't only the Minister for Human Services, the then Minister for Justice, but also Minister Cash, who has been involved up to her neck in the unlawful behaviour involving her office, which leaked information about a police raid to the media. The fact is Minister Keenan and Minister Cash were both asked by the Australian Federal Police to provide witness statements. In evidence, on Monday, the Australian Federal Police confirmed that they did not receive witness statements from those ministers. Confirming that evidence was the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who confirmed that one of the reasons they did not charge anybody in relation to the criminal breach—the unlawful behaviour of Minister Cash's office—was the lack of evidence, a deficiency in evidence. They said, in part, that deficiency went to the failure of people to provide witness statements when they were asked, and they included in that the two ministers—Minister Keenan and Minister Cash.
We have a situation where two cabinet ministers have refused to answer questions of the Australian Federal Police, which resulted in the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions not charging anyone for a criminal offence. It contributed in a failure to charge people. In fact, the minister knows—
You're just making stuff up.
He's sitting at the table now. He wants to keep interjecting. I'll go back to his office.
What came out in the court matter last week was that the former adviser of Minister Cash confirmed under oath that the former adviser of Minister Keenan actually broke the law with the adviser of Minister Cash. You have two advisers—one from Minister Cash's office and one formerly from the Minister for Human Services—both of whom provided information to the media about police raids. That is a criminal offence. That is breaching the criminal statutes, and yet both ministers have failed to cooperate with the Australian Federal Police. This is a cover-up and a conspiracy by the ministers.
But the worst thing of all is this: the Prime Minister has failed to compel these ministers to cooperate fully with the Australian Federal Police. He should be ashamed. It's a cover-up. It's a conspiracy. We'll get to the bottom of this, but, quite frankly, it is a disgraceful act by the minister at the table and Minister Cash.
For the member for Gorton, just before he leaves the chamber—he opened the door—his supposed MPI was on the interests of working Australians who are struggling with record-low wages but definitely strayed well from that to get to this side of the chamber. But, to qualify a document I've got here, which was on 20 April 2018, which goes directly to the member for Gorton's accusations towards the minister sitting at the table here—wild accusations. I'm reading from the document and I'm happy to table the document if the opposition allows me to.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
If the member for McEwen would like to hear it, I'll read it out to him if he'd stop interjecting. I think he was warned during question time too. Anyway, the actual correspondence says: 'Afternoon, Minister.'—addressed to Michael Keenan MP. 'I acknowledge receipt of your statement.' This is on 20 April 2018. 'AFP investigators'—and I hope everyone can hear this. This is from the detective superintendent of the AFP, coordinator, head office investigations, crime operations. I'll start again. On 20 April 2018, addressed to Michael Keenan MP, subject: AFP investigation, unauthorised disclosure of information to media. 'Afternoon, Minister. I acknowledge receipt of your statement. AFP investigators will review the statement and, if we require further clarification, we may reach out to you. Regards.' I seek leave to table this. Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
What we saw is the subject of the government only acting in its own interest and not for the interest of working Australians, who are struggling with record low wages. The member for Gorton actually said during his statement, while he was focusing on his actual MPI, that that side of the House were focusing on working Australians. Well, this side of the House is focusing on all Australians. We're focusing on unemployed Australians and trying to get them into jobs, and you've seen that from our record jobs over the last five years. We've got over 1.2 million people back into work. I'm happy to not only defend our government's strong record on delivering for hardworking Australians but to remind those opposite just how difficult their attempt at running the country made it for everyday Australians.
On this side of the House we are making decisions every day to ensure every Australian has the opportunity to get ahead in life. As the Prime Minister has said, if you have a go, you will get a go. That's why, as a government, we're committed to keeping our economy strong through lower taxes, supporting small and medium-sized family businesses—and I see the member for Wright. He's here in the chamber and he ran a business. I ran a business. I know the member for Stirling ran a business at one stage as well. Small and medium enterprises are the major employers of people in Australia. They are the ones who actually pay the wages; it is not the people who negotiate them. I'd like to relate a story about a transport company which would have been of a similar size to the member for Wright's. I was working for a national company back in the eighties. During that period of time, the union came to the transport company and said, 'We want to get a $20 a week wage rise for the 150 employees.' The actual company said to the union at the time—the Transport Workers' Union—'We can't afford that. If we do that, we'll go broke.' The union insisted. There were stop-work meetings. They went all the way, and it ended up with the company going broke and 150 transport workers losing their jobs because the unions went hard at them. So, for all the efforts you talk about—getting wage rises and those types of things—you've got to understand that it's the actual businesses who pay them, not you guys who always go ahead and put it on the businesses and small and medium enterprises, who drive the economy in Australia.
We are committed to our stronger economy. Because we are, we can guarantee the essential services Australians rely on. That's really what a stronger economy is for. It continues to deliver Medicare, hospitals, schools, affordable medicines, aged care and support for our veterans. We're so focused on achieving a stronger economy because that's what realises those services.
Today's wages growth results continue to show the importance of this government's economic plan. The wage price index increased by 2.3 per cent over the year to the December quarter 2018. This remains the equal-best result in four years. This wages growth results from a 2.3 per cent increase over the year to the September quarter 2018 and 2.1 per cent in the June quarter 2018. The ACT's recent claim that real wages growth is near record lows is incorrect. The CPI inflation over the year to the December quarter 2018 was 1.8 per cent. This means today's result is a real wage increase of 0.5 per cent, the highest real wage growth since September 2016. Importantly, private sector wage growth picked up 2.3 per cent through the year to the December quarter 2018, from 2.1 per cent in the year to the September quarter 2018. Again, this is the best result in four years, since the December quarter 2014.
The latest data also shows that the total hourly pay rates, including bonuses, are increasing at 2.8 per cent a year, up from 2.7 per cent in the September quarter of 2018, 2.1 per cent in the December quarter 2017 and 1.9 per cent in the December quarter 2016. This further supports the RBA governor's statement just this month, in which he said:
The other important element of the labour market is how fast wages are increasing. For some time, we have been expecting wages growth to pick up, but to do so gradually. The latest data are consistent with this, with a turning point now evident in the wage price index.
We are setting the right conditions for strong economic and jobs growth, with employment growth of 348,000 in the 2017-18 year, the largest increase in a financial year since 2004-05. This is now also translating to better wages growth. As I said before, RBA governor Philip Lowe noted just this month that the gradual pick-up of wages growth is expected to continue, consistent with information from the bank's liaison program and the expectation of a decline in labour market spare capacity. In a point of rebuke of Bill Shorten and Labor's plans to overturn the independent umpire and allow industry-wide strike policies, RBA governor Lowe also recently noted, 'I don't think further intervention is necessary.'
Since the coalition came into government in September 2013, we've created 1,239,200 jobs in the environment we've created. Over the last year, full-time employment has increased strongly, by 162,000, or 1.9 per cent. This is about jobs for people in Australia. We're focusing on those who are unemployed and getting them into jobs. This stands at a record high of 8,678,800 in December 2018.
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
I hear the member for Brand cheering us on for the record of all the jobs we've created since 2013. Unlike those opposite, we know the laws of supply and demand still hold true. Lower unemployment is a key driver of higher wages. For workers, that is why our employment record is so critical. According to the RBA's latest statement of monetary policy, wages growth has increased a little in recent quarters, consistent with a gradually tightening labour market. A recent AI Group economics research paper highlighted that the three key reasons for Australia's recent slow wages growth are weak productivity growth, spare labour capacity and weak inflation. We need to work on the factors we can influence, and that all comes down to creating the economic circumstances for improved productivity growth. This is the focus of this government's attention. Total employment is projected to increase by 886,100, or 7.1 per cent, over the five years to May 2023.
The government also supports workers to keep more of what they earn. Our personal income tax relief, which Labor voted against, allows workers to keep more of their own money and boost their disposable income. Of course, we welcome stronger wage growth. It's important to note that, whether it be over the past one, five or 10 years, wages have outpaced the cost of living, which is different from what those on the other side are saying. It's also important to understand that, when we talk about our wages, we're talking about putting more money in people's pockets. Under the coalition's plan for lower taxes, they will keep more of what they earn, leading to more choices and to more opportunity. Labor, they talk about wage growth but why do they want to hit Australians with a $200 billion in higher taxes? There's a bit of hypocrisy there—hit them with higher taxes and take away the wages growth that you want to give them.
To finish off, I'd just like to say: the best of luck to the member for Jagajaga. She and I have had a long association with redress and the Forgotten Australians over many years. Good luck with your future out of this place. I'm sure you will enjoy it.
The discussion is now concluded.
I move:
That the business of the day be called on.
Question agreed to.
Those of you who do know me very well know that the hardest thing about delivering this speech will be whether I make it through. Over 23 years in this place, I have, it's true, quietly, or not so quietly, sobbed as good friends have said their farewells. God. You see? Who am I going to miss the most? Well, now it's time for mine. It's true I don't like talking about myself but I hope you will all permit me to say a few personal things and, of course, many thank yous. I do want to talk about some things I've been thinking about—our party, our parliament, our country, and its future.
First, I want to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area, and I pay respects to the elders past and present of all Australia's Indigenous peoples. These are the words the Speaker uses to start every sitting day. When I was first elected, all that time ago, we didn't do that. We do now. Back then, we hadn't said sorry to the Stolen Generation, and the disadvantage gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians was a gulf. A lot has changed but too much has not. The shameful historical treatment, the present disadvantage and injustices should make us determined do more and do better with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens. And please, please, let us not go back to the false dichotomy between practical and symbolic change in Indigenous affairs. A good education is vital as are health care, housing and employment but so is pride in yourself, power over your own life, a sense of belonging and respect, and that's what the voice to parliament is all about—our First Australians being heard, being included, being respected. This could be a powerful unifying new institution for our country, something all of us can be proud of, so let's get on with it. I do very much hope that this fabulous new generation of parliamentarians sitting here today will do just that. You, all of you, are the custodians of our democracy now, and our democracy really must be nurtured.
In my first speech, I spoke about citizenship. I said it wasn't just about:
… having a vote or holding a passport. It means being able to share in the life of the community. It means enjoying a certain level of security. It means belonging.
The truth is that we all need each other. We need to look out for each other, protect each other and protect the institutions that bind us together. There are some things in life we should all be able to rely on. We all deserve to know that no matter what—old or young, city or bush, rich or poor—we will be able to lead good, meaningful lives that are full of purpose; that Australians everywhere can afford to see a doctor; that the children I have met in Fitzroy Crossing get the same chance at a great education as children in Melbourne; that pensioners in my Heidelberg West can have dignity and security in retirement, just like everyone else; and that my children's generation can fulfil the dream of home ownership. Each of us is subject to the twists and turns of fate. Our social safety net is there to protect everyone, and everyone deserves the security of knowing it's there when they need it. If these fundamentals of Australian life break down or only exist for the better off, then our social fabric breaks down. The same goes for our national institutions.
Canberra can seem a world away for someone trying to raise a family or find a job, as they turn on their TV sets on to see politicians talking about nothing else but themselves. Australians are losing faith. They don't trust the institutions and systems that they are told are there to provide for them and protect them, and why would they? What splashed across the front pages during the Royal Commission in to Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry reinforced what many people had long suspected: that the system is rigged; that the powerful people can do what they want and take what they want, and nothing will change; and that there is one Australia for a few and another Australia for the rest.
I do fear something has shifted in our national psyche in these past few years. There is a disconnect—in fact, a giant chasm—between the lives that most Australians are leading and the priorities of the institutions and people who are meant to be serving them. But I fear more for the reckoning it seems to be heralding. It is bad enough for Australians to lose faith in us; it is worse still if they give up on us. We cannot allow this to happen. Our people are too important and what we have all built is too precious to let it all crumble.
I believe there is a common cause to the divisions and exclusions that exist in our society. It is inequality, and it is dragging us down. It is the wealth gap between the top and the rest. It is the disadvantage gap between the First Australians and the rest of us. It is the opportunity gap between young Australians and the rest of us. It is something less tangible and less recognisable, but more pervasive and punishing: it is the poverty of hope that inequality breeds. Inequality in all its forms is the driving force behind the divisions in our society and confronting inequality, wherever it is found, has been my motivation for a career in public policy, because tackling inequality needs government—a government that believes in creating opportunity.
I came to this place knowing that government matters, but I leave here more sure of that than ever. When I was studying economics at university—it was a long time ago—they taught us about Adam Smith's invisible hand. When I was a young policy researcher, Margaret Thatcher was telling the Brits:
… there is no such thing as society.
I thought it was a load of nonsense back then, and I haven't changed my mind. Government matters. Good government matters, and good governments are active governments—activist governments. They protect. They empower. Only government can put the rules in place to stop the gross abuse by the powerful and corrupted. Only governments can create something like Medicare or the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the essential supports that are there for all of us. Good, active governments need leaders prepared to make big decisions and people prepared to do the detailed policy work and the advocacy. That's what I've tried to do here, and we did do some good.
We delivered the single biggest increase to the pension in its history, lifting one million older Australians out of poverty. We delivered the first national Paid Parental Leave Scheme, enshrining the economic and social value of working parents, particularly working women. We introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the biggest social reform of our generation, giving people with disability the equal place in society that they deserve but had been denied. We also secured the largest funding increase for housing in remote Indigenous communities.
As I've reflected on these achievements in recent weeks, it's certainly clear there is no finish line for us progressives—no distant point in the future when we can say that our job is done. The social democratic task, building an economy where everyone can contribute and everyone can share in its growth, is a perpetual task. I do have enormous faith that the next Labor government will be a progressive, reforming Labor government in the best of our traditions.
Bill and Tanya's leadership, and their partnership, has defined this period of opposition—I can't look at Tanya; you're definitely right about that, Wayne! Their unity of purpose and policy focus means Labor is ready to take up the task, ready to rebuild the safety net that's been cut, ready to restore the trust that's been lost and ready to return fairness to the centre of economic and social policy. As ever, this will require hard work and tough choices. I have to say, I think of one person when I say those words: Penny Wong's leadership in the Senate personifies this approach.
I think all of us come here a little naive—I certainly did—and not aware of how much we'll be tested and how often we'll have to grapple with competing priorities. I see the member for Curtin opposite me. She and I have shared a lot of instability in our parliamentary careers that I don't think we anticipated when we first came in. We all have very high hopes of what we can achieve, but each of us is confronted with very difficult decisions about what we will or won't say, what we will or won't do and how our words and actions could heal or hurt. The evidence before us, public opinion, our relationships, party loyalty and personal morality all influences us.
I remember the first time I was confronted with something like this, an issue where I had to stand up for what I believed. It was the fight over overseas aid that supported the reproductive rights of women. I had actually only been here a few weeks. Maybe it was a bit too soon to be disagreeing with the wonderful Kim Beazley, but so it was. There have been many, many more of these difficult decisions since, particularly on the Expenditure Review Committee where you have to weigh the value of spending money on one group of people or another. But this is why we're here. We are brought here to make these hard decisions. It doesn't mean we always get it right—we don't—but the public will understand us more and respect us more if they know how we make these decisions and know about the choices that they involve.
It's also sometimes the case that the big decisions aren't so big after all. They're not so hard, after all, when their time has come. Think of the Apology. For all those years it was resisted, compounding the hurt. But in the moment, when Kevin finally spoke for all of us, and I mean all of us, and said that one word—sorry—it seemed so simple, so easy. Why did it take so long? It needed leadership. And so it was for the royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse. It was so important for so many people who had been abused and not believed. Yet I remember that one prominent commentator at the time referred to Julia's decision to hold a Royal Commission as 'gesture politics'. Of course, no one would say that now. I am so honoured to have been involved in delivering on these two huge decisions, and honoured to have come to know and love so many of the stolen generations and their families, and the people that we now know as the forgotten Australians. These have been moments to treasure.
There are many other memories and special moments that I'll take with me—far too many to mention, but I just want to touch on a few: welcoming the Japanese Prime Minister with a haiku poem in Japanese; getting a hug from Nelson Mandela—beat that; sitting in the cabinet room on the Sunday when the global financial system was collapsing, with Kevin and a few others, and Wayne was on the phone from the United States as we decided the plan to save Australians from mass unemployment; singing Stand by Me with an Aboriginal friend whose two brothers had committed suicide, as Bill would know; being with the communities affected by the Black Saturday bushfires, as they walked through the wreckage of where their homes used to stand; standing arm in arm with families as Julia announced we would begin the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and, one of my favourites, hugging a mum whose child with autism had just learned to speak as he sang Baa Baa Black Sheep. I've given and received a lot of hugs!
And I've made so many wonderful friends—all of you. I will miss the camaraderie. I do wish I could mention you all. We're brought together from so many different parts of the country, with different backgrounds. In this intense environment, over a long period, you make deep connections and come to understand and trust one another. Although, after what we've all been through—and I mean all of us—over the last few years, it may not seem like it. But it is possible and it does happen.
Some of the friendships are more unlikely than others, but are borne out of shared values and a deep commitment to serve others, like with two of my oldest friends.
An opposition member interjecting—
Breathe deeply? Okay! There is Tanya, of course. I can't say anymore. She's a lot younger than me, that's why it's an unlikely friendship. And there is my friend Wayne, from the Queensland Right. You could say it's practically another planet! But I am originally a Queenslander, so that must be it. They are both so special to me, and I thank them. Anthony Albanese—oh dear, this is hard!—has always had my back. Always—for 23 years. That's not a bad innings, Anthony. Linda Burney has the biggest heart. There is Tony Burke, the Leader of Opposition Business—I just can't get off the tactics committee!
As well as our leaders, it's our whips who keep us all together. Chris Hayes, it's true, is a gentleman of politics. Frankly, his only failing of leadership has been his decision to appoint me as captain of our parliamentary swimming team! In all this time, we've only beaten the coalition swimmers once, and that's only thanks to Matt Thistlethwaite, and we've never beaten the parliamentary press gallery team. I think they're all a lot younger.
An honourable member: Not you, Dennis!
He's not in the team! On a serious note, Chris and I have spent many hours with our arms around our colleagues when they needed our professional and personal support. That is something that people don't see. There are so many things here that people don't see.
There have been many Speakers in my time here, and a few unusual ones. Mr Speaker, it would probably be unparliamentary to tell too many stories about them. I will just say to you, Mr Speaker, thank you for your patience. I know that I can be cheeky or noisy. I think you have done a wonderful job for this parliament, so I want to say to you, and to all the staff of the parliament—and particularly to you, David—all the very best for the future.
My dozens and dozens of personal staff that I've had over the years have been renowned for their kindness, their brilliance, their commitment to Labor values and their incredible fertility. Everybody knows I love children, and I have to say it has been such a joy to welcome so many Macklin office babies over the years. You cannot do anything without great staff. My electorate office has been led for so long by the wonderful Antony Kenney and, before him, Vicki Ward. Thanks so much to Lachlan, Ann, Katelyn, Emily and Mitch. In my ministerial office, I can't mention all of the wonderful staff, but just the chiefs of staff: Joanna Brent, Ryan Batchelor and Corri McKenzie. They have just been so outstanding in their contributions to our country. I particularly want to thank Mike Dillon. Thanks to the young ones—I still call them the young ones—Gerard and Max. In my office in opposition, thanks to Alistair, Alice, Catherine, Alicia and Tim. Thanks to all the public servants—whom I won't name because it might get them into trouble—and advocates. Without the public servants and the advocates, you cannot deliver big reform.
Like all MPs, I think it's true, we love our communities that we represent. I certainly do. I love the sporting clubs, the historical societies, the groups that look after the rivers and the creeks, the volunteers who sit with the sick and the lonely, the wonderful Somali community and my branch members, who are so dedicated, passionate and supportive. If there can be such a thing, I am the No. 1 ticket holder for the Austin and Repatriation Hospitals, having saved them from Jeff Kennett trying to sell them off. The Banyule Community Health Centre, one of the first Whitlam community health centres, is just the best. I just want to say to all of my constituents that it has been the greatest privilege to support you, stand with you and serve you.
Thank you to my neighbours in the parliament and at home in Melbourne, Andrew Giles and Ged Kearney.
I also just want to say something to those opposite. It doesn't happen often, but when we do find a common cause, it's important and very impactful. What an amazing day it was when we all voted together for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Now for the hard part—this has been easy so far—my family. The hardest thing about political life has been the time I've missed with my children. There you go, I got it out! But here they are, the three of them, all grown up into the most delightful adults: Josie, Louis and Serge. We're so proud of each of you. And now we're joined by Julia, Laura and, of course, top of the pops, our granddaughter Camille. Another is to be born in a few weeks. We are so lucky.
I recall being in a cabinet meeting, only to be called out by one of the boys when they couldn't find their football boots. Of course, whatever I was doing was irrelevant; they needed their boots. But they didn't like it when people were in the news being mean to their mum. When I was the shadow minister for health, I was in a serious scrap with Michael Wooldridge, the health minister at the time. Some of you may remember the scan scam. This was happening at the same time as the debate over the introduction of the GST. Mr Wooldridge kindly suggested the only time I'd have to pay the GST on Panadol was when I had my tattoos removed. The children were not impressed. Although, after this, an older Liberal gentleman approached me in the chamber to say, 'We know a nice girl like you wouldn't have a tattoo.' In typical Labor form, one of our Labor colleagues—not here today—followed him by shouting, 'Show us your tatts!'
Nothing, absolutely nothing at all, would have been possible without Ross. It has been a great gift, the 40 years of love and friendship, and it would be impossible for me to say what that means to me. Thank you so much.
I've been lucky to have been sustained by the companionship of Canberra friends, some of whom are here today—especially the so kind Julia Ryan—and also by the patience of our Melbourne friends. I do want to particularly thank those people who helped us when Ross was sick and also when the children were doing year 12—I think they mostly fed them. My thanks also to my parents and sister, who have been an endless source of love and support.
I don't like to reflect on it much as I am aware I'm getting older, first and foremost, because I'm a grandmother, and secondly because of the pride I feel in all of you, this amazing new generation of Labor MPs. When I first came into Parliament, there were only four Labor women in the House—four, can you imagine? Now we are on the cusp of 50-50 representation and so much stronger for it—quotas work.
I'm excited for this generation and excited that you'll be joined, I hope, by Kate Thwaites as the new member for Jagajaga. I was fortunate to have her working for me as we delivered paid parental leave and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. She knows how to think big and get the big things done and she's a mum so she knows how to multi-task.
My first vote was in 1974 for Gough and for Labor. I couldn't vote in the 1972 because 18-year-olds weren't allowed to vote back then; though of course Gough would change that. But I do remember being swept up in the energy and urgency of that election, the infectious feeling that change was finally coming. Gough said, 'It's time,' and it was. And now 'it's time' for me—time to move on, time to step back, time for this wonderful new generation of brilliant people to make their impact, as I know you will.
There is nothing wrong with having a big heart in politics—maybe don't sob as much. Seriously, there is nothing wrong at all with a big heart. There are people who really depend us, who really need us. So heed the words of Martin Luther King:
Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anaemic.
Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.
Thank you.
on indulgence—I start today with the words that concluded my very first speech in this place:
I will never forget that politics is about people and that people can make a difference. That is why I am here. I look forward to playing my part in building an even better Australia …
Going on a decade as the federal member for Higgins, I believe that I have been able to do that.
As anyone who has had the honour of serving in this place knows, you cannot make a contribution in this place without a lot of support. I want to start by thanking the people of Higgins for the privilege of representing them in this place and for entrusting me to represent their issues, both big and small. I especially want to thank them for giving me the opportunity to share in important moments in their lives and those of their families.
I also want to thank the extraordinary members of the Liberal Party. I joined the Liberal Party as a 17-year-old because I believe that people should be free to choose their own paths in life—that they should be rewarded for their hard work and enterprise—and that everyone, regardless of background or circumstance, deserves respect and the opportunity to live their best life. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to prosecute those values in this place. I have been extremely fortunate to have such a strong electorate conference executive, led so brilliantly by my good friend Mark Stretton, who is here today with his beautiful family. I'm grateful to them, as well as every member of my hardworking committee.
I feel the same debt of gratitude to the Chairman and patrons of the Higgins 200 Club and their families during my time here—Peter Bartels AO, the Hon. Peter Costello AC and current chairman, Richard Murray. Each has been a source of thoughtful advice and wonderful friendship. Peter Costello has also been a great mentor and a terrific example of integrity in political life. And while we haven't always agreed on everything, I am the better for our robust discussions. I look forward to many more in the years ahead.
I want to place on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hundreds of volunteers, supporters and friends who have backed me with their time, money and expertise over four elections. In particular, I want to thank Andrea Coote, a Higgins Liberal powerhouse, who has helped direct each of my campaigns. The people, though, on the frontline each and every day are the people who work for you. And some, like the brilliant Sarah Nicholson and Tania Coltman, have been on the journey with me from the very beginning.
Working in politics is more than just a job. It is a vocation. Like us, our staff want to serve their community and their nation and change lives for the better. The expectations and pace is unrelenting, and the sacrifices demanded of them and their families are very real. I have had the good fortune to work with the very best team in the country—people who are caring, bright, intellectually curious, loyal, hardworking and determined and who go above and beyond because they believe in our common Liberal cause. Amongst them are women and men who I hope will serve in this place or the other. I say to each of them and their families a heartfelt thankyou—you enrich the fabric of our nation, I cherish your friendship and I look forward to celebrating your many personal and professional achievements in the decades to come.
Anyone who knows me knows that family means everything to me, and without them I wouldn't be here. I'm joined today by my loving parents, Karen and Dan, who instilled in me a strong moral compass that has always been my guide. My colleagues can blame them for my forthright manner, because they taught me from a young age that you have a responsibility to communicate your view clearly, no matter how difficult and no matter the cost, and that above all else you must be true to yourself.
Two of my wonderful siblings are also here—my sister Kate and my brother, Tom, who together with my sister Nicki, who is overseas, are the very essence of tolerance, loyalty and love. I look forward to spending more time with them and their partners, along with my gorgeous and clever nieces, Lily, who is here today, Izzy, Lara and Charlie.
I met my husband, Jon, 24 years ago at university, and I am so glad that we are on life's journey together. I have relied on his advice, his reservoir of love and understanding, his truth telling, his great intellect and his selfless devotion to our family. Jon works part time and is the primary caregiver in our family, ferrying children to child care, kinder and all manner of other things. He twice took extended paternity leave so that I could serve in cabinet and parliament and breastfeed our children. Whilst Jon trained as an engineer and a lawyer, I think he now sees his core competency as logistics. He is, quite simply, a great man, wonderful husband and brilliant father, and I just love him to bits.
There is no doubt, though, that our greatest achievement in life is our two beautiful, happy, confident and loving children, Olivia and Edward. Livvy and Edward, you make my heart sing, and I love you more than words can express. There is nothing that gives me greater joy than being your mum.
From the outside, politics can look like a brutal business—and it can be. There is a ferocity and urgency that is a permanent overlay to everything that is said and done here, because politics affects everyone, because the decisions made in this place affect the choices and opportunities of millions of Australians and the sort of Australia that we are and that we might become. In the battle of ideas, robust debate is critical and accountability for decision-making essential. Those who serve here have a responsibility to think deeply about the challenges that we face as a nation. Today I want to reflect on four themes that have dominated my thinking and my approach as a backbencher and minister.
The first is the intergenerational bargain. I believe that each generation has an obligation to try to put the next generation in a stronger position than the one they inherited, or, at the very least, to make sure that they are no worse off. That is why I chaired an inquiry into foreign investment and residential real estate as a backbencher. It is why I have championed key infrastructure projects like the Melbourne Airport Rail Link and the congestion fund as a member of the Expenditure Review Committee. These are essential reforms aimed at increasing the supply of more affordable housing for all Australians. The intergenerational compact is why, as a member of the ERC, I am proud to have played my part in containing spending growth and returning the budget to surplus, in the face of an obstructionist Senate, so that we can get on with paying down Labor's debt legacy. Labor's budgets, and the trajectory they established for future years, were quite simply an enormous exercise in intergenerational wealth transfer from our children and our grandchildren to us. It is wrong to expect the next generation of Australians to fund a higher standard of living for us than they can ever reasonably be expected to achieve for themselves, yet this is a direct consequence of a spend-now pay-later philosophy. This is exacerbated further when you consider the ever-diminishing ratio of working-age Australians to fund the growing expenditure of an ageing population.
Given all this, as Assistant Treasurer and later as Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, I realised it was important to make modest tax changes to broaden our overall income tax base and put superannuation on a sustainable footing. It wasn't popular amongst all of my constituents and divided opinion amongst sections of my party's membership, but it was the right thing to do, and I am grateful to the Liberal party room for unanimously endorsing our final package. After all, how could it be right that a young person on average earnings, with a substantial HECS debt, faced a higher tax bill on the interest earned on their home deposit savings than a person who owned their own house, had a free university education and was paying no tax on the income earned from millions saved in superannuation? We must never forget that in this place we have a dual responsibility, both to the voters of today and to those that economic historian Niall Ferguson so eloquently describes as 'as yet too young to vote or as yet unborn'. The intergenerational compact demands that we be fair to both.
That leads me to the second theme I want to touch on: fairness. Fairness is more than a one-word slogan hijacked to denote the redistribution of income. It has many dimensions. We must always ask the questions: fair to who and fairer on what measure? Those who choose to work harder and longer deserve to be rewarded. Those who put their capital on the line to invest in new enterprises that create jobs should have the opportunity to see the fruits of their efforts. Government tax policy that smothers initiative and enterprise and deters risk-taking and hard work is inherently unfair. This is why, together with the Prime Minister, I am proud to have contributed to legislated tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses and tax cuts for individuals that will see the 37 per cent tax rate eliminated altogether. Our upper personal income tax rates are still too high, though, and our top marginal tax rate kicks in at too low a level. As our budgetary position improves over time, I hope that both of these issues are addressed.
Equally, it is absolutely not fair for some to treat their tax obligations as optional. If profit is earned in Australia, it must be taxed in Australia. Failing to close loopholes and enforce the law can cheat Australians of vital services and infrastructure and can mean higher taxes for those who do the right thing. I am proud to have closed loopholes that allowed multinationals to try to avoid their tax obligations, doubled penalties on large companies ripping off the taxpayer, strengthened the Australian Taxation Office and established the Tax Avoidance Taskforce. As a result, around $7 billion has been collected from large corporations, multinationals, private groups and wealthy Australians. In response to the MAAL, around $7 billion in sales income is being returned to Australians each year, plus hundreds of millions of dollars in GST revenue. Just this week, my whistleblower protections for those who expose corporate and tax misconduct were finally legislated. I'm also proud to have commissioned the first comprehensive review of the black economy, which is estimated to cost our economy up to $50 billion a year. Tackling the black economy will reduce the tax burden on everyone. Budget announcements last year have demonstrated our progress, but it is clear that there is more to do.
The third issue I want to touch on is the role of women in our society and economy, and the perennial work-life struggle. We sell ourselves short as a nation if we don't maximise the talents and expertise of both halves of our population. There should be no limit on what girls and women can aspire to and no limit on what they can achieve. As a feminist, I have always believed that girls and women deserve an equal stake in our society and our economy. We want women to make choices that are right for them and right for their families. Choice is a good thing. But we must also be mindful that a choice today can have long-term consequences. So that means that we need to have better pathways back into work after having children, more flexible work arrangements to accommodate family responsibilities and more affordable childcare arrangements. In essence, it means helping women to build their financial security.
It also means giving men more flexibility in work to take on caring responsibilities. Men love their children and want to be part of their lives, and children love their fathers. Yet the number of men who work part-time remains well below that of women, and I call this the flexibility gap. We need to normalise flexibility for men and ask, 'What are the barriers? Should we have a target?' We began work on this area during my time as Minister for Women, and I encourage my successor to continue it.
I'm proud to have delivered the inaugural Women's Economic Security Statement, with over $100 million dedicated to help build women's financial security through practical actions that boost their skills and employability, smooth their return to work, help them to establish their own businesses, and improve their economic recovery following critical life events such as family separation or domestic violence. I hope future governments commit to this important annual statement to keep a strong focus on gender equality.
I was pleased to announce funding for the first ever national inquiry into sexual harassment in the workplace and introduce legislation to enshrine minimum standards in the workplace for family and domestic violence leave. I'm glad this passed with the support of the whole parliament.
In my party, I'm proud to have instigated the Enid Lyons Fighting Fund to give extra financial assistance to women fighting elections. We need more of them to succeed. I hope the example of female trailblazers in this place since Federation, as well as my own lived experience, demonstrate to women contemplating public service that you can have a family, serve at the highest levels and make a serious and lasting contribution to your country. My decision not to recontest is a very personal one, and simply reflects, after four elections, a shift in my priorities.
The intergenerational bargain, fairness and women's issues all animated me before I came into this place. I never imagined that I would see them intersect in what many consider to be one of the driest policy areas—superannuation. I said in my first speech:
We face big challenges, and I will not duck the task of tackling those challenges.
Reforming the superannuation industry has been one such challenge. Workers are mandated by government to defer 9.5 per cent of their wages today to save for their retirement. The system has seen our national savings pool grow to $2.8 trillion, which is a great achievement.
We want to encourage people to be self-reliant in retirement—that is a good thing—yet, when I came to the portfolio, some Australians were unable to take full advantage of concessional contributions because of their work arrangements. We fixed it through reforms to deductible personal contributions so that everyone benefits. I was also particularly concerned to ensure women and men with career interruptions weren't denied access to the benefit of tax concessions for their years out of the workforce. We enacted catch-up contributions to address this. We also acted to ensure low-income Australians were not paying more tax on their mandated superannuation contributions than on their take-home pay. Our measure now benefits more than three million Australians, including around 1.9 million low-income women, to the tune of around half a billion dollars each year. These reforms all improve the system.
But there remains a deeper problem. Millions of Australians have been cheated of billions of dollars in their retirement savings. Young people have seen their accounts drained to zero through multiple accounts, multiple sets of fees and multiple insurance premiums. People have been forced into poor-performing funds through backroom deals and enterprise agreements that take away their choice. For too long, the industry has been putting their interests ahead of those of their members. They have forgotten that the money they hold on trust is not the banks' money, the unions' money or the funds' money. It is the members' money. It is their wages, so the system must work for them.
I'm proud of the action that I took to pursue a series of member-first superannuation reforms to end the rorts and rip-offs in the sector and to better protect Australians' retirement savings. Many of these reforms were endorsed by the landmark Productivity Commission report on the superannuation system and the financial services royal commission. Thankfully, many have now been legislated, despite lobby groups using members' money to try to block them. They include boosting the retirement savings of around three million Australians by about $6 billion, thanks to automatically reuniting lost and inactive low-balance accounts; capping fees on low-balance accounts and banning exit fees on all accounts, which will save members over half a billion dollars in 2019-20 alone; providing APRA with greater powers to crack down on dodgy funds; and introducing tougher penalties on fund trustees, including, for the first time, up to five years in jail.
I'm also pleased that, today, we reintroduced legislation to implement my proposed reforms to improve default insurance arrangements, by making insurance cover opt-in rather than opt-out for new members under 25 years of age and for those with low-balance accounts. It is a scandal that people are defaulted into insurance that they don't know about, don't want, don't need and, in some cases, can't even claim on. If those opposite finally see sense and support our bill without amendment, it will mean up to $3 billion each year in retirement savings for millions of affected members. I also look forward to legislation being introduced which will give victims of crime, including victims of child sex abuse offences, access to the superannuation of their perpetrators as compensation.
There remain other areas to progress. Funds should have a greater focus on retirement incomes. The retirement income covenant is an important start, but more must be done in this area. I remain hopeful that parliament will extend choice of fund to the around one million Australians who are currently restrict from doing so. I also remain hopeful that parliament has the strength to tackle the long-vexed issue of default funds, where people make no active choice about their fund or how their money should be invested. In my view, given that the government compels Australians to put an ever-increasing percentage of their wages into superannuation, it's only right that the government should offer up a solution to look after those foregone wages. It is my strong view that a conflict-free, low-fee government default fund could benefit millions of Australians by utilising the investment management expertise of the Future Fund. It would boost retirement incomes by taking advantage of economies of scale and would stop Australians from being defaulted into underperforming funds.
Fixing the superannuation system can be best summarised as getting a better deal for consumers. This has been a constant thread through the fabric of my ministerial and constituent work. I'm glad that we called the royal commission into the banking and financial services sector. It was the right thing to do. We were so keen to address the issues we had already identified that we underestimated just how strong a disinfectant the sunlight from a royal commission would be. I'm pleased that the royal commissioner's report endorsed many of the reforms that we progressed in the interim. I'm particularly proud of establishing the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, a one-stop shop to enable consumers and small businesses access to fast and free dispute resolution for banking, insurance, superannuation and financial advice. The government will extend its remit to look back 10 years.
The royal commission also endorsed the work we had done to design a compensation scheme of last resort for financial misconduct. I'm pleased the government has agreed to establish such a scheme. Time will tell, but I expect that our strengthening of ASIC, including the overhaul of its leadership and the introduction of an enforcement-focused deputy commissioner, will also have a big impact. A strong financial services system is essential to job creation. On that theme, I'm particularly proud of reforms to overhaul our insolvency laws and facilitate crowdsourced equity funding, which will support entrepreneurship and innovation.
At a local level, I have enjoyed resolving many diverse issues, but none has been more satisfying than securing a permanent home for the very first children's hospice in Australia. Very Special Kids does the work of angels, helping families with the care of profoundly ill children and supporting families dealing with unimaginable grief when a child dies. I am exceptionally grateful for their work and will continue to champion them so that they get the world-class facilities that they need.
An issue that resonated strongly with me and my electorate was same-sex marriage. One of the most nerve-racking days that I had as a new MP was the day that I walked into the Federation Chamber to announce my support for same-sex marriage. Many warned me it was a career-limiting move, and maybe it was at the time, but I believe it was the right thing to do. I am proud that it will be the legacy of a Liberal government to have legislated same-sex marriage.
This brings me to the fourth and final issue, the quality of our democracy itself. My time in this place has coincided with a deterioration of trust in both this institution and, indeed, the very concept of democracy. Social media and a proliferation of tribal echo chambers have led to warped perceptions of Australians' views, a failure to listen to alternative ideas and a decline in genuine policy debate and civil discourse. Time spent in the community is the best antidote. However, technology has accelerated our lives and our expectations. Complex policy issues in an increasingly complex world don't usually have an easy answer. The default response here should not be to immediately outsource decision-making to unelected people. Sometimes parliamentarians need to prosecute the case for patience and a deeper conversation with their electorates.
Equally concerning is the transformation of the Senate. It is now neither a house of review nor a house to protect the state's interests. Rather, it has become a forum to frustrate the government's agenda and the will of the people. This has contributed to undermining faith in our democracy and its institutions, and long-term policy outcomes for our country.
As my final observation in this place, I think that elected governments should be able to implement their mandates. I support the proposition endorsed by the Senate President for major parties to consider implementing an Australian version of the Salisbury convention. This would mean parties agreeing to abide by the convention that the Senate won't obstruct the passage of legislation to effect government policy which has been fully and fairly disclosed to the Australian people well before voting commences in an election.
In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues, including a number that I have worked with across the aisle, and, in particular, Julie Bishop for her friendship and guidance. I am lucky that before I came into this place I had two lifelong friends who were already here: the Speaker of the House, Tony Smith; and the President of the Senate, Scott Ryan, who are both like big brothers to me—and, like big brothers, can both delight and infuriate me!
I want to place on record my thanks to Malcolm Turnbull for his friendship and also his great support of me when I gave birth—the first serving cabinet minister to do so. He also made me the youngest female cabinet minister, and, together with Scott Morrison, gave me portfolios with complex policy issues to work through. I have loved the intellectual stimulation and technical detail that has come with the second-largest legislative workload in this place. I would like to place on record my gratitude to the many hardworking public servants in my various portfolios, and the teams of people who enable our parliament to function.
To the Prime Minister: thank you for your friendship, your determination, your courage and your leadership. It has never been more needed than now. I know that, with you, our country is in good hands. I thank the House for its indulgence.
I, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and the opposition, congratulate the member for Higgins, who has just given her last speech. We wish her all the very best for her and her family, and acknowledge her contribution and the sacrifice that families make when people chose to enter this House, so my very best wishes and that of everyone in this chamber.
I rise to speak on the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018. Let me begin by saying that Labor certainly supports government action to help farmers make their operations more resilient in the face of drought. Drought has been a reality of life in this nation for a very long time. Given the harsh nature of our environment in this part of the world, it is a tribute to the tenacity and, indeed, the skill of our farmers that they have been so successful. They are tough, hardworking and efficient. Their task is being made even more difficult by climate change, which the experts agree is leading to an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. We see the evidence of this on our TV screens with dispiriting regularity. We see honest people struggling hard against the elements and facing crises on an increasingly regular basis.
It's not all about climate change, but climate change is a factor. Indeed, after years of denial, even some of those opposite accept the existence of climate change, having been dragged to reality by groups like the National Farmers' Federation in my home state of New South Wales. And it certainly does make sense for the Australian government to work with our agricultural sector on drought resilience. We must assist our producers, who do so much for our nation. However, we must also think carefully about how we fund this important work.
The bill before us is inadequate. It asks us to create the Future Drought Fund for that purpose. Interest from the fund would be used to deliver up to $100 million a year in project grants from 2020-2021. But it wouldn't be established by the government making an appropriation from government funds in the normal way in which it would for a purpose that it viewed to be valuable on its merits. It would be created by abolishing the existing Building Australia Fund. This was created by the former Labor government as one of our first pieces of legislation after we were sworn in on 2 December 2007 in legislation that I introduced to this chamber. The Building Australia Fund is a vital part of the Infrastructure Australia framework, because it can only be used for the purpose of projects that have been approved by Infrastructure Australia and put on the priority list.
Now, when it comes to funding infrastructure, this government regards integrity and transparency with horror. This is the third attempt to abolish the Building Australia Fund. First, we were told this was a necessary component of the asset recycling scheme, which the government set up to provide state governments with incentives to privatise public assets. It failed in the Senate. The second occasion was with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, something not linked to infrastructure at all. We were told that we needed to transfer the money from the Building Australia Fund across to the NDIS if we were going to fund disability services. Now we're being told that, in order to fund drought resilience measures by farmers, we need to abolish the Building Australia Fund. It's absurd. There's no link between the two things.
We have committed the same amount of money as the government for a drought fund in the same time frame. The difference is that our money will be real. It doesn't have to be taken from somewhere else with no relationship whatsoever. I was trying to figure out what the relationship between the two issues—the Building Australia Fund and the Future Drought Fund—is. The link is that they're both run by the National Party, in terms of the portfolio. Quite clearly, what's happened in the internal processes is that Minister Littleproud hasn't been able to secure support for the Future Drought Fund in terms of additional funding. So within the National Party they have just had to transfer some money across from one fund to another—from Mr McCormack's responsibilities as the infrastructure minister to Minister Littleproud's responsibility as agriculture minister. That's absurd! What next? Take agriculture funding to fund a new airport? This is not the way to do good public policy.
We could have a consensus in this parliament across both sides about the outcomes and the process if the government just had a bit of common sense and said, 'Well, we'll create a future drought fund, we'll bring in legislation, it will be for that purpose and it will consist of $100 million every year from 2021,' and we'd all agree. It would take 10 minutes and it could be in place. We could even talk about the time frame and maybe bring it forward. But, instead, we have this obsession with getting rid of the Building Australia Fund, simply because the National Party can't use it as a slush fund for whatever projects they want in regional—or marginal, should I say—electorates.
This government is characterised, as we saw in today's question time and in the suspension of standing orders resolution, by a misuse of taxpayers' funds. And what they want now is to create a future drought fund that has no guidelines around it. Once again, instead of having some rigour about the use of taxpayers' funds, we have the National Party back to its old games. Remember the Area Consultative Committees? And the old regional rorts program? On this basis there's no reason to think that the National Party wouldn't be about providing selective assistance to friends and mates rather than on the basis of the interests of farmers, the interests of making a difference and the interests of need.
That's the problem with this. Based upon expert advice we'll look to fund the adoption of new, efficient technology on farm infrastructure projects, such as better water storage, better natural resource management for farms and projects to improve soil management and to build resilience to drought, floods and the changing climate. Within 60 days of taking office we would create a panel of guardians to establish guidelines for the program. We'd include the farmer organisations in that process. The panel would include experts in water, soil and environmental science, and an economist, as well as representatives of the farming sector, local government and the Council of Australian Governments. It would report to the Minister for Agriculture and would be asked to provide a detailed plan concerning the fund within 12 months, if we're successful. Given that the fund doesn't come into operation until 2020-21, that is a practical, sensible suggestion. Establish a rigorous process so that the money wouldn't be invested on political whims but on the genuine resilience projects that will make a real difference.
The government's proposal doesn't see any money flow until the financial year 2020-21. Our project would deliver projects as soon as the panel that I just mentioned finalised their arrangements, within 12 months of becoming government. So let's be very clear: Labor guarantees the same level of funding as the government, delivered sooner to fund projects chosen on the basis of genuine expert advice. That is a much better approach than eliminating the Building Australia Fund, an obsession for those opposite. As part of their attack on Infrastructure Australia, for most of the term since the change of office in 2013, for most of the last 5½ years, Infrastructure Australia hasn't had a CEO. They've had acting CEOs for most of that time. The major cities units, which were part of Infrastructure Australia, were abolished.
The Building Australia Fund was used for great projects like the Regional Rail Link, the biggest single federal investment in public transport infrastructure on record, in our history. It also delivered many projects of direct benefit to the agricultural sector. Take the Ipswich Motorway—in the shadow minister for immigration's area—which is making an enormous difference to the sector to the west of Brisbane, and making an incredible difference in the Lockyer Valley and other areas. There's also the Hunter Expressway, up to that pristine prime land up in the plains of New England and providing that linkage that's there. The reason those projects had high benefit-cost ratios was the freight that goes on those roads—much of it agricultural produce. These projects delivered real change by boosting productivity and helping farmers get their products to market, both domestic and internationally, more quickly.
The government talks about its commitment to agricultural producers but the fact is that its record when it comes to infrastructure investment which will benefit the regions is very poor indeed, when you look at the underspends that are there. The promised spending in budgets on the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program was $145 million over recent years but the actual final budget outcome shows that just $56 million was expended. Sixty-one per cent of the funding was not used—underspent. For the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, $292 million was promised but the actual delivered was $157 million—a 46 per cent underspend. For the Northern Australia Roads Program, the government committed in budgets, on budget night, $520 million but only $288 million was actually invested—a 44 per cent reduction. With the Bridges Renewal Program—so important to lift productivity in agricultural sectors to allow for goods to get to market—again, only $220 million of the $375 million that was committed in budgets was actually spent, which was a 41 per cent reduction.
Contrast that with what we did in government: creating the Regional Development Australia program; creating the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program; committing to major road and rail infrastructure, including on the Bruce and Pacific highways; rebuilding one-third of the interstate rail freight network, making an enormous difference; and making the first serious investments in the Inland Rail project.
So we think that the government has got the detail of this wrong. We need proper guidelines and rigour, but we also need proper funding for it, because our farmers deserve that proper funding on its merits—not taking it from somewhere else, not taking it from Peter to pay Paul, but making sure that we actually deliver more investment.
I rise to speak on the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018 and related bill. When Scott Morrison became Prime Minister on 24 August 2018 he made it abundantly clear that one of his main priorities was to deal with the ongoing drought. He's shown great attention to that task and more latterly, I must say, he has also shown the same compassion, concern and urgency to finding ways to assist those in the north of Queensland affected by flood. He's to be congratulated.
While the government cannot control the weather, the government has delivered a strong suite of programs to assist farmers and farming communities to cope with the drought. For the first time, as far as I can remember, a government has recognised that drought impacts on more than just farmers. There's a significant effect on local businesses. I'm very pleased that Minister McKenzie was able to respond to my request and deliver $1 million of federal Drought Communities Program grants to 13 councils in my electorate of Grey and 17 in total in South Australia. Many of them have already received approval for their projects and are progressing quickly. These guarantees will help mitigate the severe ripple effects of the drought felt in rural communities and stimulate their local economies.
For farmers directly, the government contributes across a wide range of programs, including farm management deposits, farm household assistance, the Rural Financial Counselling Service, concessional loans for drought and farm business development, assistance to benchmark properties to prepare for multiperil crop insurance and large increases in the resources for mental health services. The Liberal-National government recognises that farming keeps the country economy humming and our rural and regional communities vibrant. It has committed $7 billion in new assistance for drought affected farmers.
This kind of expenditure is unpredictable, generally not budgeted for and presents a real test to any budget. So far, the government has been focusing on addressing the effects of the current drought, and that is right and appropriate. However, also exercising our minds is how we prepare better for droughts in the future and how we build resilience for the long term. We all know that Australia is the land of droughts and flooding plains. As sure as night follows day, when this drought is over, another one will come.
This bill addresses that challenge and will establish the Future Drought Fund and will provide an additional credit of $3.9 billion, which will grow until it reaches $5 billion. Through this fund, funding to the tune of $100 million a year will be available for drought resilience initiatives, while the balance is reinvested in the fund. The Future Drought Fund builds drought resilience through long-term investment in our communities, which will enable our $60 billion farming industry to continue to flourish.
The money from the fund will assist primary producers, non-government organisations and regional communities to prepare for and respond to the impact of drought. It will encourage primary producers, non-government organisations and regional communities to adopt self-reliant approaches to manage exposure to drought. It will provide services and research; assist in the adoption of technology advice and infrastructure to support long-term sustainability in the event of drought, through capital and ongoing initiatives; and enhance the public good—that is, the benefits are not solely for the individual farm entities.
In short, the Future Drought Fund will deliver infrastructure projects, promote the adoption of new technology and help improve environmental and natural resource management on farms. The fund will help give our farmers and regional communities the tools to prepare for, manage and sustain their businesses through drought. It is a far better proposition to invest in resilience than to have to provide bandaids. It is far better for farmers to be able to withstand drought than to have to rely on assistance. It's far better to invest in stronger communities so that they are able to deal with the pressures of drought than to have to resuscitate. Since we know that the challenges of drought vary from farm to farm, district to district and town to town, the fund has flexibility to support local solutions to ensure that we continually adapt and build our capacity in all of our drought-prone communities.
Regrettably, instead of playing a constructive role in helping our farming communities, Labor have continued their long history of attacks on country people. Many of our farming communities clearly remember how Labor butchered the agricultural policies when they were last in government. They haven't improved a lot since then. Once again, they have decided to play politics with the future of our farming communities. Under normal circumstances I would find the behaviour by Labor regrettable; but in the middle of an unprecedented drought, when farmers are at their most vulnerable, it is simply deplorable and destructive. Labor is, as their wont, just playing for cheap political points. What we're trying to do on this side of the House is to establish the long-term solution, a proper preparation for the future.
Among other things, and as the previous speaker has said, Labor have claimed that this important investment in drought resilience is at the expense of important road and rail projects, many of which will benefit our farmers and regional communities. That is absolutely false. Our investment in infrastructure is at record levels. As for the Building Australia Fund, they would learn with just a very small amount of effort that the fund holds $3.9 billion—that is correct—but that all the commitments under the fund have been completed and accounts finalised. There are no more payments required. That's why we're shifting the balance to the Future Drought Fund.
The government has also been accused of raiding the NDIS to shore up the money for the fund, and this too is false. The government had previously suggested that the $3.9 billion sitting idle in the Building Australia Fund be used to fund the NDIS, but, because of opposition from Labor in the Senate, this suggestion never came to fruition. The member Grayndler, just a few moments ago, was complaining about the use of this fund to establish the Future Drought Fund. I have a memory from 2007, when Labor came to government. There was $2 billion in a regional telecommunications fund, the interest of which was to fund the rolling out of new technologies across regional and rural Australia. That is the money that should've been used through the six years of Labor government to actually fund a mobile phone blackspot program, but they chose not to invest. So when the member for Grayndler talks about his care and compassion for rural and regional areas and lists off all the ways that his government—should they be elected—will assist rural and regional Australia, I'm drawn back to that time when we had $2 billion confiscated and put into Kevin Rudd's first attempt at an NBN. It was going to be a $4 billion program. That money, that $100 million to $200 million a year should still be there; it should still be funding the rollout of blackspot towers in rural and regional Australia, but it's not. So their record is not good in this area.
To return to the NDIS, because of the strongly improved budget fortunes brought about by the government, with responsible economic and fiscal management we have instead secured the future of the NDIS through alternative funding. That's a great outcome. It's the same NDIS that Labor left only half funded when it was ousted from office. We can therefore repurpose the funding from the Building Australia Fund without curtailing critical infrastructure projects and without affecting the funding for the NDIS. I strongly encourage Labor to put aside their party politics and support this important bill, to enable farmers and entire communities to droughtproof for that future by supporting them to invest in on-farm water infrastructure and other important infrastructure in rural and regional areas.
Labor does not support the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018, because it does not go far enough; it takes too long to deliver results and it will gut the Building Australia Fund. That's the simple truth. We don't support this bill because it doesn't do enough. Labor proposes an alternative approach that will see money released to more disaster affected communities sooner, and which, critically, does not endanger the vital work undertaken by the Building Australia Fund.
A Labor Shorten government will also help farmers build defences to drought, lift productivity and secure sustainable profitability while also—I emphasise this—building road and rail infrastructure. On this side of the House, we will not raid the Building Australia Fund. We know how vital it is. Yes, New South Wales and Queensland have been ravaged by a long drought and, yes, those communities require assistance. They have required assistance for some time, and we have been in lock step with measures by this parliament to support them, including backing reforms to the Farm Household Allowance, increasing the farm asset threshold, and the Farm Management Deposit Scheme. No-one can be in any doubt that Labor supports drought affected communities.
But as we've seen with the Townsville floods and the Tasmanian bushfires, there is much more to natural disaster in Australia than drought. This bill to create the Future Drought Fund fails at the first hurdle, because it restricts funding to people affected only by drought, locking out many across regional Australia whose livelihoods are just as affected by other natural disasters.
This bill sets out a broad definition for drought resilience projects as being to enhance resilience, preparedness and responsiveness as well as management of exposure to drought, adaptation to the impact of drought, recovery from drought, and the long-term drought related sustainability of farms and communities. In and of themselves, these are laudable goals, but there's more to natural disasters in Australia than drought. Each year from 2020, $100 million will be transferred from the Future Drought Fund to an agriculture future drought resilience account, which the agriculture minister will then tap for drought resilience projects—not bad, except 2021 is a bit late for farmers who require assistance right now. And the requirement that the minister have regard to advice from the Regional Investment Corporation is just weird. The RIC is one of those National Party lovefests. Does the RIC have particular specialised knowledge in drought resilience? If so, we haven't been told how. What is it bringing to the table that existing agencies and experts cannot?
It has to be said that this bill comes off the back of the government's failure to release a revised intergovernmental agreement on drought reform and years of failure in this area. The Prime Minister held a drought summit in October, where he announced the fund on the morning of the summit—before the talking began. That is symptomatic of this government—policy on the run, and politically driven, after six years of failure on the issues of drought resilience and climate change policy.
Labor support the objectives of the Future Drought Fund; we just believe it doesn't go far enough. We believe the mechanism to resource it—by raiding the Building Australia Fund—cannot be supported and that there may not be enough safeguards to ensure that it doesn't become just another National Party slush fund. This bill will have a shameful impact on the Building Australia Fund, a fund whose explicit purpose is to finance critical infrastructure, much of it across regional Australia. The government are playing a shell game here. They want to create the Future Drought Fund by gutting the Building Australia Fund. It's not new money. The Liberals are taking $3.9 billion from a fund that has a proven track record of financing critical infrastructure across regional Australia and putting it into another fund. It will mean the end of the BAF, established in 2008 by Labor, which has financed road and rail networks, and broadband and telecommunications connections. Critically, the BAF follows the recommendations and advice of experts. That's why the Liberals and their friends in the National Party hate it. It's not a pork barrel they can stick their snouts into and use to reward their mates or sandbag their marginals. It's an infrastructure fund that provides infrastructure where it's needed, not because the local MP is in trouble or because the local mayor is a mate and wants a road named after him. That's why they want it gone and why they've tried a few times since 2013 to knock it on the head. It's shameful, absolutely shameful, that they're trying to kill the BAF this time under the cover of providing drought relief for suffering farmers.
Let's look at this government's history. We have a drought envoy, the member for New England, who's spent much of his time since 2013 being the Minister for Agriculture and the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, until his fall from grace last year. Why did he not use the authority of his office as a minister of the Crown and Deputy Prime Minister to do something about disaster relief? Why is it all here in a rush now, six years into their term of government, when over there we have a man who has been, for about five years of this government, Deputy Prime Minister? Warren Truss may have been the minister before that, but, for a good portion of the time, Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, has been a senior member of the government. Yet nothing was done during his tenure. We know that what the member for New England did do as minister was abolish the Standing Council on Primary Industries, the COAG committee on agricultural matters which had in its orbit the intergovernmental agreement on drought policy reform.
This summer has been particularly hostile to Australia, with extreme weather gripping the country. We've seen more than 200,000 hectares of land, just over three per cent of Tasmania's surface area, burned in my state in recent bushfires. Sadly, it's the second bushfire of this nature to hit my home in a few years. It's gutted many of the communities in my state and largely been started naturally by more than 2,400 lightning strikes hitting Tasmania without rain—dry lightning strikes. The fires, some of which are still burning along, despite the cooler weather, are expected to burn and smoulder for at least another month. They've burned unique Tasmanian landscapes and they not only have damaged the state's natural heritage in my electorate, that of my colleague the member for Braddon and also of our colleague the member for Franklin, but also are impacting on our tourism and, importantly, destroying environments that have been growing untouched for centuries.
Queensland, on the other hand, is under water. Townsville, with a population of 180,000, has been hit by a monsoon strengthened by a low-pressure front resulting in an unprecedented 1½ metres of rain in less than two weeks. I saw on the news this morning that Birdsville is about to be under water. It hasn't seen rain in ages. The rain is destroying homes; is causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to property and public infrastructure, resulting in the deaths of at least two men; and has totally disrupted the Townsville community.
Elsewhere across Australia, particularly in eastern Australia, there is drought, but drought's not the only natural disaster. This Future Drought Fund doesn't help people affected by flood and doesn't help people affected by bushfire. The whole of New South Wales was declared to be in drought in the latter half of 2018, so it's clear that this drought, as we all know, is one of the worst in Australian history. Those on this side of the House stand with those communities. We know they need relief, and they need relief now, not in a year's time. But they're not the only ones who need relief. We need a long-term plan, a long-term fund, for this country that doesn't gut an essential fund that's already in place that funds infrastructure. If we're going to have a long-term natural disaster relief fund, let's make sure it covers more than just drought. It's so important.
There's no doubt that the climate is growing more challenging for our farmers, and drought can no longer be viewed as an exceptional event. A hotter and drier environment should be considered the new normal, and Labor believes there is a role for government in helping farmers adapt to changing weather patterns. This means that, in addition to in-drought policy responses, government must lead the resilience and productivity agenda. That's what we will do in government. It won't just be about drought—we will lead a resilience and productivity agenda about natural disaster. But the policy development must be evidence based and guided by known science. It should focus on a whole-of-industry, productivity and resilience-building agenda. Policies with too great a focus on those farm businesses which are least viable in the hottest and driest of periods can risk being most defined by resource misallocation. It's important that any future response by government takes that into account. It's a hard truth, but we need to take it into account.
These are ambitious goals, and they will not be achieved by this government's proposal, which does appear, on the face of it, to be designed to create a National Party slush fund. There's no other reason I can think of for why this government and their friends in the Nationals have been so determined to get rid of the Building Australia Fund. They've tried a number of times to knock it on the head by finding other purposes for that money, but that money does vital work building infrastructure across Australia, and it's evidence based infrastructure. It's not infrastructure for mates, for your friends on the local council, to prop up your marginal seat or to do a bit of pork-barrelling for the election; it's infrastructure for the right reasons that's evidence based. We know that's why you on the other side don't like it—you have a real problem with that sort of fund. It's the sort of fund Labor is committed to. We could be like them. We could decide, 'Let's just pork-barrel the place and look after our own interests,' but we don't do that. We're not here to look after our own interests. We're here to look after the nation's interests. It's something those opposite sometimes fail to remember and fail to understand.
Importantly, Labor commits to matching the government's funding commitment to the Future Drought Fund, but we will not raid the Building Australia Fund to do it, and we will not wait until 2020-21 to take the decisions on spending measures. We will design policy initiatives for the entire sector based on expert advice ahead of 2020. We will establish a panel of guardians for the farm productivity and sustainable profitability fund. These guardians will advise government on policy design and implementation strategies. We will establish this panel within the first 60 days of office and put it immediately to work. This panel will include a representative of the national farm leadership group, a leading soils and environmental science expert, a water projects and water efficiency expert, a leading economist, a soils advocate, a representative of a natural resource management group, the chair or CEO of the council of RDCs and the secretary of a relevant COAG committee. It will be a panel of experts, a panel of people grounded in science who know what they're talking about; not people who are looking out for themselves and their own political interests. That panel will report to the minister for agriculture and be asked to provide a detailed plan within 12 months.
We do stand here opposed to the government's bill. We stand with them on the need to do something; we just want it done sooner, for the same amount of money and with a better mechanism that will serve more Australians who are suffering from natural disasters. I don't want them getting up and saying, 'Labor's against drought-affected farmers!' Nothing could be further from the truth. We stand with drought-affected farmers and communities. We stand with communities affected by bushfire. We stand with communities affected by flood. It's not either/or; we're all in this together. Those opposite should take a good, hard think about that and, I would suggest, perhaps withdraw the bill and implement something much more akin to what Labor suggests should happen.
It gives me great pride to rise in the House today to support the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018. Before I start I'll just take the member for Lyons up on his comments about the National Party and it being a National Party slush fund. Well, I'm the Liberal member for O'Connor, and I'm very proud to be in the House today with the member for Groom and the member for Farrer, and I follow the member for Grey—all Liberals, all regional Liberals, that support and fight for our communities on a daily basis. Of course, the member for Farrer and the member for Groom would have many constituents in their electorates that are currently being dramatically impacted by the drought. I know that that takes an emotional toll on all of our communities, including on us as the representatives of those communities in this place.
The Future Drought Fund Bill establishes the Future Drought Fund, the Future Drought Fund Special Account and the Agriculture Future Drought Fund Resilience Special Account. The Future Drought Fund includes the Future Drought Fund Special Account, which I've just mentioned. The purpose of the Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 is to make consequential amendments to a number of existing statutes to extend the Future Fund's board's duties to include managing the Future Drought Fund and to allow for amounts to be transferred between the Future Drought Fund and the Future Fund. There are a fair bit of 'future funds' in there. The initial credit to the FDF Special Account will come from the transfer of the balance of Building Australia Fund, which is estimated to be $3.9 billion. The Future Drought Fund is expected to grow to $5 billion over time.
At the drought summit held in Canberra on 26 October 2018, the Prime Minister announced a package of new initiatives for drought relief, recovery and resilience, including the Future Drought Fund. A comprehensive drought response needs to be met for the immediate needs of those affected and to also look to the future to ensure that our agriculture sector is prepared and resilient. We can do this. Our government is establishing the Future Drought Fund with this initial allocation of $3.9 billion. The Future Drought Fund will provide a sustainable source of funding for drought resilience works preparedness and recovery. It's about helping farmers and their communities to prepare to adapt to the impact of drought. Through the fund, the government will draw down $100 million a year for projects, research and infrastructure to support long-term sustainability. This Future Drought Fund represents the latest in a long line of efforts by governments of all political persuasions to address the complex problems of ongoing drought and its social and economic effects.
Deputy Speaker Goodenough, as a proud Western Australian, as you are too, I want to mention the farmers of my electorate of O'Connor and the farmers across Western Australia generally. We don't have, in Western Australia, the severe droughts that we see occurring on a reasonably, unfortunately, regular basis across the east coast, but we do have pockets within my electorate that have been severely deficient of rainfall this year. But having said that, we have had a large harvest, the second-largest harvest on record by volume, and, actually, the most valuable harvest ever produced in Western Australia. Western Australian farmers do have, as I said, their difficulties, and certainly in the area around the Gardner River in my electorate there were some farmers who didn't harvest a crop this year. They've experienced the same sort of financial and emotional difficulty that many of our colleagues on the east coast have suffered.
I want to commend our farmers for their innovation. Western Australian farmers have been at the forefront in the development of no-till farming, which is a fantastic innovation which allows more of the available moisture to be used. It protects our soils, and it was developed by a farmer in my electorate—a very dear friend and someone who has made an enormous contribution and was recognised recently at an international science award in New York—Ray Harrington, the President of the Shire of Darkan. It was the Harrington knifepoint that was developed in the early 1990s that has basically revolutionised agriculture across Australia. As I say, it is the innovation of the farming community that will ultimately allow us to adapt to what is undoubtedly a drying climate and continue to produce record crops like we saw this year.
The existing measures that this government has introduced to allow people to prepare for drought include instant asset write-offs for fodder storage and water infrastructure. This is very important. Some of this infrastructure can cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and to be able to instantly write that off in a year of plenty, in a good year where there's a large tax liability on the farm business to be able to invest in important infrastructure to prepare for dry years and receive a tax deduction immediately, is of huge benefit to farm operations. I know that that will be very much appreciated.
Farm management deposits have been increased from $400,000 to $800,000 per partner in the business, and most farming operations, certainly across my electorate now, are multimillion-dollar businesses. I think that's an important initiative of the government to increase that threshold so that people can prepare financially for those more difficult years.
Another important initiative of the government was to allow interest earned on farm management deposits to be offset against loans against the farm business, and that's been very welcome where it's been able to be implemented across my electorate. We've also given farmers a hand up rather than a handout by extending the Farm Household Allowance scheme to make sure that they can keep food on their table and maintain their dignity in the most difficult times.
In my electorate of O'Connor, the government announced a $140 million water infrastructure project at the Wellington Dam late last year, which will see large amounts of water made available for the coastal plain and the horticultural areas down there, which is a very important project, particularly in the member for Forrest's electorate. But there's a particularly important scheme in my electorate, the Southern Forests Irrigation Scheme. This is based around the Southern Forests area of Manjimup, Pemberton. It is one of the richest, most fertile and most productive farming areas in, certainly, Western Australia, if not in Australia. They are producing some of the world's best horticultural products, particularly, most recently, avocadoes, which are a very lucrative crop. Unfortunately, in the South West of Western Australia the climate is drying. We've seen around a 30 per cent to 40 per cent drop in rainfall since 1960. The existing farm water infrastructure is struggling to keep up and to allow further development.
The Southern Forrest Irrigation Scheme is a project that is around $90 million. That has been funded partly by the owner contributions and partly by a commitment of the previous Western Australian government, which thankfully has been maintained up to date by the new Labor government in Western Australia. There is still $39 million that needs to be found to finish this project. I'm certainly hopeful that the Commonwealth government will be able to assist there through our water infrastructure fund, but this is the sort of project that could be funded by the Future Drought Fund. This particular project will droughtproof the Southern Forests area, and that's particularly important.
Disgracefully, though, I heard today that the state Minister for Regional Development, Alannah MacTiernan, has given the proponents a deadline of June or she will withdraw the state government funding. That is holding a gun to their head, and it is very disappointing. The Commonwealth government granted $1 million late last year for the proponents to complete their planning and complete their approvals—I'm not sure that that process is absolutely finished yet—and yet the state minister is threatening to withdraw the money that has been promised and committed. That is a major blow to those good people down in the Southern Forests.
The second project that I think would fit very, very neatly into the Future Drought Fund program would be the Ravensthorpe-Esperance barrier fence. This is a 700-kilometre fence that would separate the very productive farmland along that south coastal strip between Ravensthorpe and Esperance from the Great Western Woodlands, where we now have a lot of native animals and vermin that are coming into the agricultural areas and causing a lot of problems. The fence is 700 kilometres. It will be emu-proof and dog-proof.
The previous Liberal-National government in Western Australia had committed $7 million to this $11 million project. The Ravensthorpe and Esperance shires have contributed $1.5 million. There's still another $2 million to complete this project. The environmental approvals have been granted for this project, but they are being appealed. I would like to add that, throughout this process, the Commonwealth has been making contributions of up to $3.5 million for dog control.
I take this opportunity to urge Western Australian Minister MacTiernan to allow the proponents of the barrier fence to get on and start building it. It's going to take three years to construct the fence. In the meantime, we will find the extra $2 million from somewhere to complete the fence. Of course, this would be an ideal project for the Future Drought Fund. When there are drought conditions in the rangelands, that's when the feral animals—the camels, the emus and the wild dogs—migrate into the agricultural areas and cause enormous damage.
I say to Minister MacTiernan: please, allow the proponents to get building. Let's get 500 kilometres or 600 kilometres of the fence built, and we'll find the money somewhere. Ultimately, the money might come from the Future Drought Fund to complete it. That is the purpose of this fund; it is to make money available to invest in these sorts of projects in between droughts—not while a drought is happening but in between droughts—to prepare the communities and the agricultural sector for the inevitable droughts that will come. We know that. We live in a country of droughts and flooding plains. I would like to conclude by commending this bill to the House.
I think it's pretty unfair when we have this banter in this place, or if it's outside, where one side says the other doesn't care about farmers or that we don't care about farmers in drought. I think that really needs to stop. I come from a regional area of Tasmania that has suffered significant bushfires because of very dry conditions. I have a very agricultural electorate; some of the members opposite have been to my electorate—not many, but some. My whole state is regional, if you want to look at it that way, and, sadly, a large part of my state has been the victim of bushfires.
I think this is where this Future Drought Fund Bill 2018 is lacking, because it just looks at drought. In previous, recent, years, a lot of my farmers have been dealing with drought conditions, but they've also been dealing with floods. We know what's going on in Northern Queensland, and I think we need to look at a way to assist our farmers that is not just restricted to drought. There is a better way. I think it's absolutely appalling that this government is using the BAF—the Building Australia Fund—to fund something that is quite narrow, because that fund assists infrastructure building in regional communities like mine. These are significant projects which really help regional Australia move; whether it's the high-value product that comes out of our regional economies and regional communities, it's supporting jobs in that way. So there is a better way, and Labor has a better way.
I heard some of the contributions that have been made, and I did feel a little sad when I heard the comments made by the member for Hunter about the most recent years under the previous Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England—I guess, his laziness and incompetence as a minister. I know this from personal experience, because when my farmers were going through issues—you couldn't even bear to talk to them because the dairy crisis was so heartwrenching—I called out to that minister. There were no party politics involved and no strings attached. I invited that minister to come to my state to meet with my farmers. They had been through a drought as well, they were doing it really tough, and that minister at that time ignored my pleas and requests.
I think that's a very bad reflection on him. The member for Hunter can probably talk for days about the incompetence of that minister and where we are now. That minister didn't really lay very good ground to support our farmers over the past few years, and we are where we are now with not a lot actually happening to support them. I have to say that I have more hope for the new agriculture minister. He has been to my state maybe once. He is more than welcome to come to Tasmania, and I have asked him to meet with my farmers—particularly my dairy farmers—to speak with them directly. Again, that is with no strings attached; just come to my state. One of the things that I was once told was that National Party members were not allowed in the state of Tasmania. Well, we have a National Party senator now, and I understand that the National Party has preselected National Party candidates, even against Liberal Party candidates. That is quite extraordinary, to say the least. So I'm sure the new Minister for Agriculture is more than welcome to come to Tasmania.
What we have seen are a number of policy failures by this government which have had a real consequence at the coalface, where farming families have been struggling through drought, flood and fire, and also that dairy price clawback that we saw in 2016. Those things come with massive financial and human costs, and it just breaks your heart to talk to these farmers. I'd like to take this opportunity to put on the record my tribute to services like Rural Business Tasmania and Rural Alive & Well, who have done so much for farming families, not just in my electorate but across the state of Tasmania.
In many ways, Tasmania is blessed with an abundance of water. We have one per cent of Australia's land mass but, on average, 13 per cent of the rainfall. It doesn't rain every day, but on most days it does in one part of our state. But we do have a problem as to where the rain actually falls. I've said this a number of times, and I don't quite know if people believe me when I say it, but Hobart is actually the second-driest capital city in Australia, outside Perth. The east coast and the Midlands, in the electorate of Lyons, are in the rain shadow, with the majority of rain falling on the west coast and the north-west coast, which is in my electorate; hence we have so many wonderful dams. On the north-west coast, farming is different to what you see in Bourke or Coonamble. But when there is a dry season or successive dry seasons, the dams dry up, the irrigators stop pumping and the consequences are the same for our farmers.
A positive for Tasmanian farmers has been the success of state and federal Labor irrigation projects. I stress that it was Labor who invested in our irrigation projects in Tasmania which completely transformed agriculture in our state, and even the landscape has been absolutely astonishing. I'll have more to say about the role irrigation plays in Tasmania for our farmers. As I've said, Tasmania's not immune to drought. I'm not sure why, but drought in Tasmania does not seem to fall on the radar of those opposite. Maybe it's because they don't have any Tasmanian representatives in this House; hopefully it will stay that way, because the Labor representatives here are always supporting our farmers and always talking about what we can do to help them in times of need.
The spring of 2015 was the hottest and driest on record. The dry was followed by, again, bushfires in the summer of 2016 which were then, as I've mentioned, followed by the dairy price clawbacks. And just as night follows day, the drought was broken with the devastating floods of 2016, where, sadly, a few lives were lost in my community. In recent weeks, Tasmanian farmers and also the forestry sector have again been hit with devastating, devastating bushfires. Throughout 2015 and 2016, the coalition were nowhere to be seen. During the dairy crisis, as I said, that minister I invited did not come. But we spoke to those farmers and we've continued to speak to those farmers. It's really pleasing today to have the member for Hunter, our shadow agricultural minister, announce support for our dairy farmers with a floor price to make sure they are going to start making money. And that's really, really important.
The member for Hughes and his friend—I might just point out, there's a number of members on the opposite side talking about today—the member for Warringah are absolutely non-believers in climate change. I think they may still be debating whether the earth is flat or round. I think there are some sceptics as well on the opposite benches because it is not something we hear about from them when we are talking about climate change. I'd like to refer those sceptics when we're seeing these extreme weather events, not just drought but also flood. Let's just remember, it's not just about the warming planet; it's about these extreme weather events that really hit our farmers hard.
I want to put on record an article that was published by Wayne Johnston, who is president of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, the TFGA. It was published in last week's edition of Tasmanian Country. It's really important to put this on Hansard. It said:
Fundamentally, one of the key pillars of farming is the weather. We plant to the seasons, we harvest to the seasons, and our success depends upon having reliable and consistent weather patterns.
Anyone farming in Tasmania knows that these fundamentals can no longer be relied upon.
In the past five seasons alone we have seen some of the wettest and the driest and some of the hottest conditions this state has experienced in living memory.
No one farming community in Tasmania is under any illusions about the fact that our climate is changing and the impact on our capacity to produce food is very real.
Accepting climate change has never really been the issue.
It is high time we have some sensible conversations around this issue not only for the present, but for our children and grandchildren's sake.
It does not serve anyone, or the community, for this issue to remain as politicised as it is.
The risks to agriculture alone are significant. Modelling suggests that rainfall patterns and existing seasons will alter.
This alone will directly impact on what we grow and where we grow it.
The biosecurity risks associated with a change in climate are in many ways the most significant. Invasive species such as weeds and animals will find it easier to establish in a warming Tasmanian climate.
And let's not forget the fruit fly issue we had in my electorate in particular; that's because of our warming climate. The TFGA get it that climate change is real. They get it that we will have more extreme weather events. And they get that drought will become more prevalent. It was really pleasing today for me today to attend the launch of a new group, an alliance that was launched in parliament today, Climate Proofing Australia. It is a conservation and industry led alliance of organisations committed to advancing the role of agribusiness, conservation and natural resource management in Australia's climate change and emissions reduction policy. And it was pleasing that the agricultural minister attended this. The members are the Australian Forest Products Association, Farmers For Climate Action, Greening Australia and the Red Meat Advisory Council. They are concerned about climate change and what it means for our farmers. I think it's important that those opposite really get involved with this organisation if they truly believe they represent farmers. That's a very pleasing initiative that the farming community and other industries are taking.
We do welcome the fact that the government has finally woken up to the need to do more to address drought. But, typically, this bill is smoke and mirrors. On the one hand, the Prime Minister wants to be seen to be doing something, but, on the other, the future drought fund which this bill proposes to establish won't come into effect until the year 2020-21. Farmers could be waiting for over two years for any support to help them adapt and tackle drought. This bill does not address the long-term policy and planning that is needed to assist our farmers and rural communities to manage drought.
This side of the House thinks that we can do better. We've already given bipartisan support to the government to increase the farm asset threshold from $2.6 million to $5 million, to increase the Farm Management Deposits scheme to $800,000, to increase the Farm Household Allowance extension from three years to four years and to provide additional supplementary Farm Household Allowance payments of up to $12,000 for eligible allowance recipients. Those are just some of the things, and there have been a lot of issues prior to that. We've had to have massive arguments in this place just to get some support for farmers.
Do they think farmers in financial crisis deserve face-to-face support or do they think they should be tied up for hours on end on the phone? That's one of the issues we heard about with the Farm Household Allowance system. The level that these farmers went through was just absolutely ridiculous, and some actually gave up. I've spoken in this place around what that's meant for some of the farmers who were trying to get some assistance, particularly through the dairy crisis. It was just extraordinary.
I want to move now to irrigation projects. I heard the member for New England taking credit for irrigation projects in Tasmania. I mean, seriously! And he had a crack at the member for Lyons, who was sitting in the chamber, saying that he didn't support irrigation. I want to take this House back quite a while. This started under a state Labor government over 10 or 15 years ago, when we started Tasmanian Irrigation. We've had successive irrigation projects rolled out in my state, and they have been funded by Labor. The tranches that were then subsequently funded by this government, which we had to argue for and lobby for—even the state Liberal government had to put pressure on the government to fund it—were all Labor initiatives. For the previous Deputy Prime Minister to say that we don't support irrigation is just utter nonsense, and it's actually quite offensive. It's not just offensive to the Labor members in this place but also offensive to the Labor members of the state parliament, current and former. It's also offensive to the farmers who have invested their own money in those schemes—absolutely offensive! Every single irrigation project that is currently operational in Tasmania is a Labor project, funded and delivered by Labor or planned by Labor.
Those opposite talk up a big game when it comes to drought proofing through irrigation, but their record in Tasmania has been abysmal. Under this government, we have had almost six years of no action and no vision. We already know that they're not serious about climate change. I really do hope that changes, but I don't have a lot of hope, sadly. They can't agree on an energy policy, for starters. They are also not serious about irrigation in Tasmania, nor are they serious about boosting the productivity of, and value adding to, the agricultural sector.
Further evidence of the mismanagement of the decisions made by the previous member—there's a lot that he did that was not in the best interests of agriculture at all—is the abolition of the Standing Council on Primary Industries, or SCoPI. SCoPI was the COAG community for agricultural issues and was responsible for progressing the intergovernmental agreement on drought policy reform. It's so important to have that state and Commonwealth relationship. For the minister to abolish that was absolutely a terrible, terrible decision. The only people who got hurt in that were our farmers and our agricultural sector. That's something that I know that we will be supporting once we get back into government. I'm not sure which genius thought he could progress national drought policy without working with the states. That's the process to do that. (Time expired)
What an omnishambles of a response to an important policy measure this Labor Party response to our Future Drought Fund Bill 2018 is. I've listened with amazement. How could a group of people that purports to represent the whole country—our entire nation cares about drought—be about to vote against a bill that has an initial $3.9 billion investment, building to $5 billion, that will disperse $100 million a year to fund important water infrastructure and drought resilience projects, and that is carefully managed by a plan, a consultation process, published reviews and all the assurances you'd expect, and that includes encouraging farmers to adopt sustainable management practices? I don't know that anyone opposite would complain about the architecture of our Medical Research Future Fund, which is exactly the same as this drought fund. I can't believe it. I'm sure it won't happen that people in the Labor Party will come into this place and vote against this bill. Because if you've represented rural Australia for as long as I have—and I'm not the only one who has; there is the minister at the table and others on the benches behind me—you absolutely understand that one of the things that farmers talk about all the time is sustainability of support and funding. Sustainability of support and funding means that, when a crisis hits, and we know that it will—whether it be drought, flood or other circumstances such as, in my electorate in particular, the lack of irrigation water—there is a fund, there is a measured approach and the money is there. We can't always trust Labor when they're managing the economy to have the money there. So let's set this fund up now, and let's give our farmers the confidence to know that there is a safety net there for them. It matters a great deal.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about how the drought is affecting my electorate of Farrer. Like many other parts of the country, we're running out of water—water for stock and water that normally falls from the sky and irrigates dryland cropping. But the biggest hurt that we're experiencing in the Murray-Darling Basin is the lack of irrigation water. Every season is different, but there's no argument that this one is shaping up to be the worst. We know that the basin is the life blood of so many of the communities in the New South Wales Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys. This area is the food bowl of our nation.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is meant to be about governments working with the people to make sure that farmers and regions are viable and sustainable, the sorts of things that the Future Drought Fund Bill is going to do. But the circumstances in my electorate are not happy. There is a water allocation crisis and the use of environmental water has left many angry and frustrated. When we see environmental water used to good effect, there's a positive return to everyone—we love it—but that has been lacking. What is needed is a stronger and more meaningful engagement with communities, with a focus on improving the plan and reflecting on how it might better look after our needs, and that means for everyone in every community in the basin, and the environment as well.
In August last year, I spoke about the desperation expressed by so many in my electorate struggling with the drought, with zero water allocations and with so many different issues and problems. Drought is felt by all in regional Australia. Some are saying up to 300 positions are being impacted by the SunRice restructure. The rice mill in Deniliquin is, effectively, closed down because there is no rice being grown. Workers and families are in pretty desperate straits. Low water allocations and high water prices are to blame. Water buybacks have been a catastrophe. The Labor Party spent $2.2 billion on non-strategic, non-targeted buybacks, with a devastating effect. Buybacks have never been Liberal or National Party policy. While in opposition, I gained a commitment from then opposition leader Tony Abbott, which was later legislated, to ensure that this type of buyback—in fact, any buyback—would never happen again. In 2015, the Water Amendment Bill imposed a 1,500-gigalitre statutory limit on Commonwealth buybacks. At the time, we moved an amendment to make sure that farm infrastructure expenditure could not be used for buybacks.
I'm terribly disappointed, because it was bipartisan—and we have heard Labor Party members talk about the bipartisan nature of the plan—but unfortunately it is not bipartisan any longer. Under pressure, wriggling around in almost the final fortnight of this parliament, Labor have introduced a private member's bill, I understand, and have certainly stated that it's their policy to lift the cap on buybacks, thus signalling to a group of their supporters—who clearly do not live, work, raise a family and depend on the basin for their future—that somehow they have better environmental credentials than we do. So the bipartisanship on the Basin Plan is unravelling rapidly before our very eyes, and this worries me enormously. It worries me because it really is the last straw for us. If that buyback cap goes, then any remaining shred of credibility that this plan has in the communities that I represent goes with it. And, I have to say, I'll stand with them at that point in time.
Last year, when Labor were playing silly games in the Senate about a disallowance motion for the northern basin, I had conversations with state ministers about New South Wales, my state, exiting the plan, because we could see what was starting to happen—the same thing that's starting to happen now, with Labor crab-walking away from a previous commitment. I went on a long trip around my electorate and asked everyone, 'What do you want me to do?' and the response was: 'Stick with the plan, stay with it. We know it's not perfect. We know the damage is done, but we also know that it's there for everyone in the basin, and everyone doesn't always agree with us.' So there was an extremely positive, or, I should say, constructive—they were not always positive about the plan; how could they be?—approach at that point in time. So we stuck with the plan. That was what my communities wanted me to do.
I suggested that we work up a system where environmental water that wasn't used in the current watering season be allocated to farmers to save their crops, and that hit a wall of bureaucracy between state and federal organisations, not least the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. I was very disappointed by that. I know that it could have saved some of those crops.
I'm calling for an assessment of allocations and entitlements, something that is very much focused at the New South Wales level but does need to happen because we are seeing a reduction in yield on delivery entitlements. So, if you have lost water, sold water, been bought out and you're still farming and you have some delivery entitlements, you've got an expectation of a general security allocation, which means you don't get all the water all the time—we understand that—but your yield will be of a certain value. It allows you to plan and invest, and it maintains the value of your asset, your farm, your livelihood. But that yield is falling, and something is not right.
We need, therefore, to bring to this all the data and all the expertise, independently. We're an open book to anyone who wants to come and examine our circumstances, because I know they'll find that the experiences that I talk about in parliament are the experiences that are happening each and every day; they're real, they're not imagined and they're really, really hurting us. There are catastrophes that hit, like drought and fire, and my communities hurt with those communities. But they also want some attention, because the slow strangulation that they're experiencing unfortunately only ends in one place. So there is a level of emergency about this. We've got an election in New South Wales, and, with that as a backdrop, our New South Wales water minister was in Griffith last night, I understand, and gave people a lot of heart by saying, 'If that 1,500-gigalitre cap goes, Canberra Labor Party people, we in New South Wales will have to seriously consider withdrawing from the plan.'
I'm now being approached by many who have voluntarily given their lives to this cause—because it's pretty complicated when you're talking about water; explaining it to people who don't live in the basin, trying to get your message heard, trying to gather the necessary information to really make your case—and there is a strong initiative to pause the plan. From where we were in August last year, we've come a long way, but unfortunately it's a long way in the wrong direction. I understand it. I feel complete sympathy with that point of view. People are saying, 'We must pause the plan, because look what it's doing to us.' When I look at the long list of people who have signed on to this and see significant local government regions, significant industries and individuals all in that frame of mind, I just want to say to them: I stand with you. Because you know what? If you stand for everything, as Labor does, you stand for nothing. What's wrong with coming into this parliament to talk about drought in this bill and to talk about regional policy in another bill, and acknowledging that the Murray-Darling Basin is the food bowl of our nation? They are not just pretty words. They mean that our contribution to the national accounts, to our export industries, to feeding our people, feeding our nearest neighbours, feeding the world and building our foundations in agricultural trade are very much in the regions that I represent.
We want people to look closely at what's happening and to recognise that, as I said before, while it isn't a fire and it isn't a flood, and you don't see, necessarily, starving stock in a paddock, you do see paddocks that should be green and growing with food and fibre that have nothing and, unfortunately, are facing the prospect of three seasons of zero allocation. Can you imagine what that means? That means three growing seasons where you've no income, and sometimes you go backwards.
Consider if you're a dairy farmer. I thank our Agriculture Minister for the supportive comments he made and the steps he's making towards addressing the needs of dairy farmers. Dairy farmers in my electorate who rely on irrigation water are going backwards by about $1,000 a cow a year. So if you milk 500 cows—that's a fairly moderate number—you're losing $500,000. Imagine getting up every day and going to work knowing that's what you're going to lose. We, in the Murray-Darling Basin, want to play our part—work constructively, talk to governments, talk to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and talk to the Environmental Water Holder and work with them—to deliver the flexibility and the adaptability that we know the plan should contain and does contain, but the review, which I think is in 2026, is a little bit too far down the track.
Harold Clapham, from Mainland Finance Deniliquin, who's been working with my community, said to me this week, 'You are in fact looking at the gravest manifestation of the failure of the plan, and it has divided regions, split communities, broken life-long friendships and destroyed totally all trust and goodwill in the political system.' When good friends of mine, who are moderate and careful and constructive, deliver that message to me, I know that this is really, really serious. Along with the communities of the New South Wales Murray and Murrumbidgee, the lower Darling, while not necessarily in the food bowl part of the basin, is really, really hurting. When I know that the attention of the nation is on all of us, I hope it comes clear that we, on this side of the parliament, understand your pain, feel what you're going through and desperately want to help you get to where you need to go. No-one wants to leave their farms. No-one wants to stop farming. No-one wants to have their children decide to grow up in another part of the country. We know that we can contribute enormously to this country's future.
Thank you to so many who've contributed so much to their communities in these tough times. Resilience is an easy word that gets bandied around here, but you really see it in action when there's drought and when people are struggling, particularly in small communities. I always say that great people come from small towns. There are some great people in my electorate of Farrer, and I want them to stay strong.
In my addressing this legislation tonight, the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018, I'd like to take the House through some of my concerns about the bill, look at the process of accountability for the minister in spending the dividend and outline areas where I will be making amendments. Secondly, I would like to talk about the missed opportunity in this bill for the government to resolve its thinking about our regional communities and the lack of opportunity to give voice to, listen to and act on the priorities for rural and regional communities.
The purpose of these Future Drought Fund bills appears to be relatively straightforward: to establish a Future Drought Fund that will support drought resilience measures into the future. It talks of an investment of $3.6 billion that will return a dividend of $100 million a year from July 2020, next year, with that dividend to be spent on drought resilience measures as the minister sees fit so long as they are consistent with the drought resilience funding plan. Colleagues, while I support the intent of the bill, I feel the bill was rushed out to meet the drought summit time line. I feel it's loosely drafted and does not represent good governance and, in its current form, I'm unable to support the bill.
Consequently, I will be moving amendments to the bill in the consideration in detail stage. In these amendments I will cover the operations of the fund, to make it more transparent, and propose that the minister becomes accountable to the parliament for spending, that we see good governance designed into the development of the plan and that proper process is followed in the expenditure of the dividends. The amendments I propose pick up the concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, by the Senate committee inquiry into the bill and by the proposed improvements recommended by the National Farmers Federation as part of that inquiry—no small group of people to support me in my amendments.
Let me talk about the process of accountability. As it currently stands, the bill lacks accountability to the parliament. It gives all the power to the minister, and there are no checks and balances—that minister can basically just say, 'Trust me.' The minister has the power to spend $100 million a year on loosely defined drought resilience objectives, as long as the spend is consistent with the drought resilience funding plan. The only check on this consistency is by the government's Regional Investment Corporation. The government's Regional Investment Corporation is a bank. The drought resilience funding plan guiding this investment will be developed by the government's department and it currently only involves a 20-day consultation period with the community. So $100 million a year, a complex plan, and all we get are bankers to oversee it.
The drought resilience funding plan will be reviewed every four years, but there's no mechanism in the review to check its effectiveness. In fact, there's no mechanism anywhere to account for effectiveness and delivery. The drought resilience funding plan is to be a legislative instrument, but it's not disallowable. So parliament is not able to disagree with the minister. The parliament will have no opportunity to hold the minister to account for the content of the plan. So, after this bill is passed, the only chance the parliament will have to review the effectiveness of the fund would be a review after 10 years of operation. But, even then, as the bill is drafted, the report is not required to be tabled in the parliament or published. So, after 10 years of population, it can be reviewed, but the review doesn't have to be published.
All Australians should be concerned by the lack of transparency and accountability of $100 million a year. I'm concerned, and it's not just me that's concerned—though, clearly, it's pretty important that I am, given that this is my background and my interest. In preparing for tonight's debate, we connected with that wonderful group called the National Farmers Federation—not exactly a radical socialised group supporting government expenditure. In their input to the Senate committee inquiry, the NFF raised concerns about the funding plan and expenditure. They wanted the views of drought and related issues experts incorporated—so not just bankers; let's have someone involved who gets rural and regional Australia. As member for Farrer just said, let's have someone who actually understands agriculture. The NFF recommended that the bill be amended to establish a future drought fund consultative committee and, at the very least, to get some professional agricultural rural knowledge and skill into the process. I agree, and I'll be proposing that this committee be established as part of the process.
I would also like to briefly talk about some of the recommendations from Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. What a wonderful thing this is—a standing committee on the scrutiny of bills. They talk about broad discretionary powers, and they basically say that 'the expenditure should be subject to at least some level of parliamentary scrutiny'—at least some level; I agree. The committee went on to say, 'In this regard, the committee is concerned that the bill contains no guidance on its face as to the terms or conditions that would be attached to the financial assistance granted.' So that's pretty interesting, and I would say, 'Well, what's the role for parliament here?' I will be moving some amendments along those lines. The committee also talks about merits review and says:
So we've got no idea about what the merits are of the people who get the grant and of the minister who spends $100 million, other than a plan that's been approved by a banking organisation. So there's no link in there at all to how agricultural outcomes or drought resilience will be achieved. Further, the report of the committee stated:
The committee's consistent view is that significant matters relating to a legislative scheme, such as how grants and agreements under the relevant scheme are to be administered, should be included in primary legislation (or at least in legislative instruments subject to parliamentary disallowance and sunsetting) unless a sound justification for using non-disallowable delegated legislation is provided.
That certainly has not been provided in this legislation. The report continued:
The committee requests the minister's advice as to why it is considered necessary and appropriate to confer on the Agriculture Minister a broad power to make grants of financial assistance, in the absence of any guidance on the face of the bill as to how this power is to be exercised.
I agree. There's more in that report, but I won't spend all my time talking about it. It is well worth a read.
I would like to talk about the issues that we have. I have to say that it is not just me that thinks that there are problems here; there's a large body of people who think that we could do better and we should do better. I will be moving amendments to the bill proposing that we look at a review mechanism; that we look at checks and balances and expenditure; and that we look to the Productivity Commission to become involved to address the effectiveness of it. The review would occur, ideally, before the plan is reviewed every four years, so that review can then be considered as part of the renewal. I will also ask in my amendments that the Productivity Commission be asked to review the effectiveness of the fund having regard to economic outcomes but also social and environment outcomes. All of us know that drought affects the economy, it affects the environment, and it affects the communities. So we've got to look at how this money is actually used across those three areas.
Colleagues, I'd briefly like to talk about the amendments, but I'd also like to talk about a missed opportunity in this legislation—and not only the poor governance aspect of it. What a golden opportunity for rural and regional Australia this is—$100 million a year and the idea of a plan. If we can get a consultative committee in place, what a difference this money could make to our communities. But if it's only spent on a pipe, what a lost opportunity that would be. If it's only spent on infrastructure and we don't pay attention to the impacts on the environment or the community, what a lost opportunity it would be. So I want to talk a little bit about the opportunity for leadership in rural and regional Australia, the opportunity to work with real people in real places—exactly like the member for Farrer talked about in her speech—and the opportunity that this money gives us not only to work with resilience and build people's resilience physically, emotionally and environmentally but to position ourselves for future droughts, which will come, by working with local government and community groups to say, 'Well, it's going to happen. How do we work together to plan for the future?'
Let me talk a little bit about planning. It's so much money. It could make such a difference if we plan around the integration of government policy. One of the failings I see in this bill is that we don't actually talk about how it fits in with other government policy. The one I know so much about is our policy on rural and regional Australia. I've been part of the committee looking at the future of regional development and decentralisation. Surely, a policy that's looking at drought has to look at regional development and decentralisation. One of the recommendations in that particular report is that we come up with what we called 'regional plans'. A regional plan gets everybody in the community together to look at Commonwealth, state and local government funding. We look at what we've got, and we see where there's duplication and how we can use more of it. Imagine if we were to develop these regional plans and then, together, we were able to link to some of this drought resilience money and say, 'Here's how this money can add value to the whole.' What a difference that would make! But it requires government to work across portfolios. I really encourage the minister to give some consideration to how we can value-add this money and get much better bang for our buck by looking at a strategic approach to significant planning—not just planning for the $100 million but planning for regional Australia and our long-term prosperity.
Not only do we have a problem, then, with missed opportunity around regional planning; I also want to talk a little bit about what I want to see in my own electorate of Albury-Wodonga, which, as the member for Farrer has just said, is in the Murray-Darling Basin. We've got this drought at the moment, and we've also got a problem with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. There is a huge opportunity to use funding like this to bring communities together across difference—an opportunity to work with the communities of the Murray-Darling Basin. I just have to take issue with the member for Farrer. While she's the member for the New South Wales side of the river, I just want to say: it's a valley, and a valley knows no political boundaries. So we've actually got to work together across the New South Wales-Victorian boundary and also across the political boundaries that we have. That means working across both sides of parliament, and that's why I think this bill is so important. We actually need to think about how that money is going to be spent to give us the greatest bang for our buck.
I'm just going to bring my comments to a close and, in speaking tonight, I want to talk a little bit about my decision-making framework. This is a really important piece of legislation. This has the potential to be absolutely fundamental to the future of our rural and regional communities and, in particular, to help our farming communities manage drought. But there are so many problems at the moment. There are problems with grants. There are problems with review. I've mentioned them. I was thinking tonight about my approach to how I was voting. Is this legislation right in its concepts? I think it is. I think $100 million and a good way of working will make a really big difference. Could this legislation be good for Indi? Absolutely. And good for Australia? Absolutely.
The third thing in my decision-making framework is: is this legislation exhibiting good governance? I don't think so. Consequently, I'll be making some amendments. Are there any unintended consequences attached to this bill? Yes, I think there are. The stakeholders include the NFF, whom I've just quoted. The NFF thinks there are problems. Landcare thinks we could do it better. And I'm sure, if we opened it up wider, there would be many, many really good stakeholders who could value-add and tell us about the unintended consequences. An unregulated grants program will always cause us problems.
In my closing comments, I would like to acknowledge the departmental staff and the advisers here. You've been an absolute delight to work with, and I look forward to working with you on the amendments and, hopefully, on making this legislation the best legislation it can be so that I can support it and have the benefits come to my community and to Australia, just as we hope will happen.
I do take great pleasure in joining the debate on the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018 and recognise from the outset the work by the minister in bringing together the coalition government's focus on making sure the farmers in our communities are well prepared for the inevitability of future droughts in our country. I'll be making a few comments in a moment's time about the existing drought which is affecting Gippsland farmers, but for now I want to reflect on the fact that this legislation for the Future Drought Fund will provide for a long-term investment to build drought resistance in Australian communities, which is desperately needed, and to enable our $60 billion industry to reach new heights through improved performance.
The Future Drought Fund will provide additional support for our farming families and our communities, with the aim of bolstering drought resilience right across our nation. Importantly, the fund will be available to support research, development and innovation—key areas for our farming families as they adapt to the variability of the climate—and make sure we continue to play an important role in meeting the food and fibre needs not just of our own community but of our export markets. It also helps deliver infrastructure projects to promote the adoption of technology and support improved environmental and natural resource management to encourage sustainable agricultural practices.
I want to reflect for a moment on that point. Our farmers are at the absolute front line when it comes to practical environmental management. It's our farmers who tend to be the ones who join the Landcare organisations and who, with the backing of good technical support, are prepared to invest in their own properties to make sure they're more viable in the longer term. I only need to reflect on the Macalister Irrigation District in my seat, where, with the benefit of whole-of-farm management plans, our farming families have been investing in improved irrigation technology to make sure that they reduce the amount of nutrient running off their properties and into the nearby streams and down to the Gippsland Lakes, which obviously has an impact on the potential for algal blooms. Obviously the farmers themselves don't want to see those nutrients running off their property; they want them to get back on the grass to grow more pasture for their dairy herds. The investments we've seen in Gippsland over the past 10 years, backed up by good research, have been incredibly important to achieve good outcomes for my farming communities.
I want to point out that one of the key aspects of this legislation before the House is that it will provide for a drawdown of $100 million per year to invest in important drought resilience projects. I'm hopeful this legislation gets through as quickly as possible, because I've got a few projects in my own electorate, and I'm sure people will be coming forward to co-invest with government on projects that will make a real difference. I want to refer specifically to the Lindenow flats on the banks of the Mitchell River. The farmers on the Lindenow flats are incredibly important in terms of providing the salad and vegetable needs along the whole east coast of Australia. Every summer they're severely impacted by their capacity to draw down on their entitlements—they actually pay for these entitlements—from the Mitchell River. They're having to come up with a whole range of their own solutions in terms of storing water throughout the heavier flows in winter and then having access to that water in the summer months to finish their crops off. We're going to need to find ways to help those farmers deal with the variability of the flows on the Mitchell River. These farmers are coming to me saying they're not after greater entitlement; they're simply trying to get the entitlement they've actually paid for, which is very difficult to achieve in these current dry conditions.
I can't stand here this evening and talk on this bill without reflecting for some time on the drought which is affecting many families in my community. I've got to say, Deputy Speaker Hastie—I know you've been here for a few years now yourself—when you see your community struggling, and it's often in a rural, regional or peri-urban seat, your community may struggle for a range of reasons. In Gippsland, it's all the natural disasters you would expect. We're exposed to fire, flood and drought. I've had all of those in the 10 years I've been in this place. I have to say that, of all of those, I find drought the most exhausting and insidious of natural disasters. It erodes at the hope of the farming community. It undermines the viability of our agribusinesses. Every sunny day, every windy day, every dry day, it's corrosive throughout the community as it takes away from people's confidence in the future.
Droughts are times of decisions around when to sell, which of your stock to keep, how you're going to purchase feed, where you're going to access that feed from, and other decisions around when you re-sow pastures, and taking a punt on the seasonal break which hopefully comes this autumn. I've got to say there are many in my community who feel that our drought—the Gippsland drought—has been the forgotten drought. That's not meant to be derogatory to anyone in this place or derogatory to the broader community; we know that western Queensland, in particular, has suffered enormously, and large parts of New South Wales have been gripped by drought for a long period of time now.
Gippsland is renowned as a place of rolling green hills and fast-flowing rivers, and people just seem to expect that it's always like that in Gippsland. Well, the farmers I've been talking to over the summer break are telling me that in some parts of my region it is the worst conditions in 100 years. People who've been on the same property for 100 years have rainfall records their families have kept reliably, and they tell me they're experiencing the worst rainfall conditions in 100 years. I've got to say to the people of Gippsland: we haven't forgotten them in this place, and I certainly haven't forgotten them. We need to make sure we're doing everything we can to support them as much as possible to ensure they're viable in the longer term.
I had the opportunity just a couple of weeks ago to catch up with a few of my old mates in the agricultural industry, and in tow I had the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, my good friend Michael McCormack. As we met with farmers and travelled through the area south of Sale around Giffard and Mcloughlins Beach, he was able to see for himself just how poorly the country was doing in that part of my region. In the two weeks since, though, conditions there, which were already very bad, have deteriorated enormously. Wind storms have resulted in paddocks blowing badly, and farmers are watching their prized asset—their topsoil—blowing away before their eyes. There is a sense of helplessness in the face of these dry conditions and a sense of frustration as well as they recognise the very severe economic consequences for their own financial situation and the environmental consequences for their properties—and these are well-managed properties. The environmental consequences are quite severe.
But it also has a huge social impact on the structure of little communities like Giffard, Stradbroke and Mcloughlins Beach; further east in my electorate, areas around the townships of Briagolong, Bengworden and Meerlieu; and all the way out to Orbost, which is famous for its Snowy River flats and being very productive country. All are in very poor condition. And then go into the high country like Ensay, Swifts Creek and Dargo; and that region is affected as well. It's dry across the East Gippsland and Wellington shires, and I have to acknowledge that the government did include both of those shires in its support for local government.
So it's basically affecting just about all the dryland country in my community. As I said, some are reporting the worst conditions in nearly a century. Parts of East Gippsland have received their lowest rainfall on record. At the same time, farmers on irrigated land are preparing for water shortages as well. Unfortunately, the most recent Bureau of Meteorology drought statements, from February this year, are showing a 22-month rainfall deficiency and serious or severe rainfall deficiencies continuing across much of eastern Victoria. Again the January rainfall in Gippsland was below average. It's a crisis situation which, as I said just a moment ago, has deteriorated in the last couple of weeks. We do need to see all levels of government working together in these very challenging times. I commend the work that I've already seen by the federal government, but I've got to say I'm looking for more in terms of local and state coordination of our efforts to respond to this crisis.
In the order of 380 farmers across the region are receiving the farm household allowance—260 of those are in the East Gippsland area alone. I know measures have been taken to try to improve the eligibility criteria to reduce red tape, but the feedback I'm receiving on the ground is that there's still more work to be done in that regard. It is still extraordinarily difficult, time-consuming and frustrating for our farming families to access that household allowance. It's an important payment, though, because it does help to put food on the table. It's a modest payment, but it's certainly something that those who are eligible for greatly appreciate. There have been two special lump-sum payments for the eligible families. One was paid last September, and I think in April this year there will be another payment made available. I think it's in the order of $12,000 for couples and $7,200 for singles. Again, these are important payments for those eligible for them.
The concern that's been raised with me is that, if a farming family takes initiative and starts securing off-farm income, it then becomes very difficult to actually access some of the support that we're making available to them. We're, effectively, punishing people who have the capacity, the wherewithal and the get up and go to try to keep their farm viable by seeking off-farm income. It's something I've raised with the minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
I had been frustrated in the early stages by the Victorian government's lack of action on the drought but I spoke with the state agriculture minister over the weekend and received assurances that she will be visiting the drought-impacted area of my community in the coming days. Victoria is yet to announce that it will sign up to the $50 million On-Farm Emergency Water Infrastructure Rebate Scheme, which is frustrating for some of the farmers in my community who see the benefits flowing to their New South Wales colleagues across the border, and they're waiting for Victoria to actually sign up for the scheme.
There's a lot of demand within my community for the Victorian government to take action in relation to municipal rates. The biggest challenge that farmers have as they deal with this drought is, as I said before, making these important decisions. But the basic cost structure of their business makes it hard for them to make sure they're viable for when better conditions return. Help with municipal rates is something that just about every farmer I've spoken to over the last couple of months has raised with me. They want to see more assistance with other basic household costs and the fixed costs around registration of vehicles. They also want to see whether there's more we could be doing to provide the technical support and perhaps even financial support to help them re-establish pastures, which are blowing away at the moment. These are farms that have been sustainably and very well managed for generations. They're seeing conditions and experiencing challenges that they've never dealt with before. Some will require additional technical support—agronomist and other specialist advice on how they re-establish these pastures when the better conditions return. We need to make sure that these farming businesses, which have been viable for decades, remain viable in the future.
The federal government itself deserves some credit for what's already been invested in working with the drought-affected communities across our nation. The Drought Communities Program has been extended from, I think, 60 local communities to 81, providing them with $1 million each to keep people employed and to help businesses to keep running. I doubt that that's going to be enough. A million dollars will go very quickly. I know in the Wellington Shire right now, one of the decisions they made was to subsidise the water cartage costs for people to fill their tanks for domestic use. I think that money's going to run out fairly quickly across many municipalities, so I doubt that will be enough, and we'll probably have to revisit that issue in the week and months ahead if conditions don't improve.
I mentioned before the On-Farm Emergency Water Infrastructure Rebate Scheme, which has been well-received, I understand, in New South Wales, but to the best of my knowledge Victoria hasn't signed up at this point. There's been increased funding for mental health, which is very important and something that reflects on the way this place and our community have learnt a great deal about the impact of trauma on the mental wellbeing of our communities, and having additional resources available is very important. I would simply encourage, on that point, our farming communities and also people in the towns who may not be aware of how tough it is out on the farms to reach out to their mates on the land and make sure they're not trying to go through this alone.
As a local member, I've raised my concerns directly with the Prime Minister both late last year and again this year. I have been seeking a whole-of-government approach to help our farming communities. As I said, the Deputy Prime Minister has already visited my region, and the agriculture minister will be there in a couple of weeks' time. My message, to put it simply, is: while we have done a lot and we can be proud of what we've done in this place, and the government and the cabinet can be proud of what we've done already, there's still a lot more to be done.
I'm afraid that the support is not necessarily getting out there to all of the families who need it. The bureaucracy and red tape we put in the road of people when they're already in difficult circumstances undermines the value of the funding that's already been announced. We've got to find ways to cut through the red tape. I face it in my own Department of Veterans' Affairs on a daily basis. When people are at their most vulnerable, when they're struggling with the economic and social challenges that go with drought, they're not in the best place to be filling out piles of paperwork. So my message to my farming families is to look after each other in these difficult times, look after themselves and make sure they're seeking any assistance if they need it, and getting out and about as much as they possibly can. We do have a great history of providing food and fibre in Gippsland, but we also have a great future in the agricultural sector.
I rise to speak on the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018 and the Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018. At the commencement of this year, 58.1 per cent of the land area of Queensland was drought-declared. That's about one million square kilometres, or about the size of France, Germany and the United Kingdom combined. That is 23 councils and five part-council areas drought-declared. This is devastating for regional Queensland. Some of these communities have faced their seventh consecutive year of drought.
I'm from western Queensland—not far western Queensland—from the town of St George on the Balonne River. I've seen what drought looks like, how it affects country towns and how it can be a drain on communities. I know that there are people out there doing it tough. Some of my friends still work on farms and have been doing it tough for a long time now, but their resilience is an inspiration. We need to support drought-affected farmers in Queensland, and obviously right across Australia, and we need to support their communities.
Labor has always supported farmers. I don't just mean in the rollout of needs based education funding, which particularly benefits the bush, or Medicare, which obviously particularly benefits the bush as well, or the NBN, which is a great leap forward for bush communities. In fact, I would suggest those three policies have done more for the bush than the National Party has ever done in the history of Federation, with all respect to my colleagues from the National Party.
With all due respect!
With all due respect! I'll take that from the minister at the table. But Labor has supported the few drought measures put forward by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. Those measures included an additional supplementary farm household allowance payment of up to $12,000 for eligible recipients, increasing the farm household allowance extension from three years to four years, increasing the farm assets threshold from $2.6 million to $5 million and increasing the Farm Management Deposits Scheme to $800,000. Now we see the Morrison government is reviewing the farm household allowance because many farmers are choosing not to apply for it or, if they do apply, are found to be ineligible.
We're still waiting for the Morrison government to release a new, revised Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform. The previous, inaugural intergovernmental agreement on drought reform was established by the previous Labor government. Now we have the coalition government halfway through its sixth year of governing, and, during that time, what has it done for regional Australia? It has failed to introduce any meaningful policy that would relieve the pressure on farmers and their communities who have been suffering through a seemingly endless drought.
In October last year, the new Prime Minister called a Drought Summit. He announced the Future Drought Fund on the morning of the summit. This was one of the Prime Minister's special 'policy on-the-run' announcements. The Prime Minister turned a summit to discuss the very livelihood of farmers into a cheap political opportunity, thus showing the advertising-man blood that courses through his Bronte veins.
What these bills do is establish the Future Drought Fund that was announced by the Prime Minister as part of the Drought Summit on 26 October last year. The fund will be managed by the Future Fund and credited with $3.9 billion on its establishment. The fund is expected to grow to $5 billion by 2028-29. From 2020-21, an amount of up to $100 million will be able to be drawn each year to pay for drought resilience projects, with the remainder accumulating in the fund. The projects that may be eligible could include infrastructure projects, adoption of technology, improved environmental and natural resource management, and research development and innovation. The Treasurer and the finance minister will be responsible for the fund. The agriculture minister would be responsible for providing grants on the advice of the Regional Investment Corporation, in line with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan.
But where does the money come from to set up this Future Drought Fund? The initial $3.9 billion comes from the abolition of the Building Australia Fund. So they've decided to stop building Australia. The BAF was established in 2008 by Labor and is managed by the Future Fund. Withdrawals and expenditure from the BAF are overseen by independent advisory boards and measured against the nation-building funds evaluation criteria. Sadly, we see that the coalition governments, under three prime ministers, have never drawn from the BAF—never!
In 2017, they attempted to abolish the BAF as part of their attack on NDIS funding. Thankfully, Labor were able to block that attack.
The BAF was established to fund critical national transport and communications infrastructure, including rail, road, ports and broadband that is not being provided by the private sector or the states, so it's something that particularly benefits the bush. Important infrastructure across Australia has been undertaken through investment from the BAF, including the Ipswich Motorway in Queensland, which is a great link to the Lockyer Valley and the west; the Hunter Expressway in New South Wales; and the Regional Rail Link in Victoria. But the Building Australia Fund will be abolished by this short-sighted Morrison government.
Labor is also concerned that the proposed Future Drought Fund, set up with funds from the Building Australia Fund, may end up being another National Party slush fund. The Future Drought Fund is really just a plan to spend money on something in 2020 but with only a very vague idea of what that may be. They've had more than five years to make investments in technology adoption and natural resource management, but they've showed no interest in doing anything about those things in that time. Now, on the eve of an election, suddenly the coalition are running around and throwing money at drought-affected farmers—although they're not really. As I said, it's a vague plan to spend some money in 2020.
Also concerning is that the Morrison government says it will take advice on how to spend the money from the Regional Investment Corporation, also known as the 'Barnaby bank'. The Regional Investment Corporation has no expertise in these matters. It is located in the central west of New South Wales—not in Queensland, where the worst drought affected areas are. Australian farmers deserve a government that is forward thinking, a government that plans for the actual future, not an imaginary fairytale from the 1950s where droughts don't exist. It is a reality that we're going to see more extreme weather events in Australia, including extreme drought.
The BoM, or the Bureau of Meteorology, report State of the climate 2018 reveals:
I'm sorry for the Western Australians here:
Across the same region May- July rainfall—
the so-called Mediterranean climate—
has seen the largest decrease, by around 20 per cent since 1970.
It also says the south-east of Australia has seen a decline of April-October rainfall of around 11 per cent since the late 1990s. However, rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s. There's been a long-term increase in extreme fire weather, and in the duration of the fire season, across large parts of Australia. The BoM report also discusses why we are seeing these changes. It says:
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and methane, make it harder for the Earth to radiate this heat, so increase the temperature of the Earth's surface, ocean and atmosphere.
The report also says:
Australia is projected to experience:
… … …
This is the Morrison government's own report that says we're going to see more of these extreme weather events, including more time in drought because of global warming, yet the coalition government has done nothing to address this growing crisis in the nearly six years they've been in office.
Labor believes that there is a role for government to help farmers adapt to changing weather patterns. I wonder sometimes if the National Party ever talks to actual farmers, rather than—what have we got? We've got economists. We've got journalists. We've got reporters. We don't seem to have any fair dinkum farmers left in the National Party. Labor believes all policy development must be evidence based. It must be guided by known science and should focus on a whole-of-industry productivity and resilience-building agenda. This is ambitious. It won't be achieved by the proposal put forward by the Morrison government that is contained in these bills. However, Labor commits to matching the Morrison government's funding commitments to its Future Drought Fund.
But Labor won't wait until 2020-21 to take decisions on spending measures. We will take expert advice and design policy initiatives for the whole sector ahead of 2020. Labor will establish a farm productivity and sustainable profitability fund. A panel of guardians will be convened to advise the government on policy design and implementation strategies. If elected, a Shorten Labor government will establish the panel within the first 60 days of office, and the panel will be immediately put to work. The panel will include a representative of a national farm leadership group, a leading soils and environmental science expert, a water projects and water efficiency expert, a leading economist, a soils advocate, a representative of a natural resource management group, the chair or CEO of the Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations and the secretary of the relevant COAG committee. The panel will report to the minister for agriculture and will be asked to provide a detailed plan within 12 months. Labor will also restore the Standing Council on Primary Industries, a COAG committee for agricultural matters that was charged with progressing the Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform. That COAG committee was abolished by the Abbott government as soon as it took office. Labor will restore that committee and put drought policy reform back on track.
Labor has many concerns about the bills currently before the House. Labor will not rush this legislation through parliament. It should be carefully considered by a Senate committee. Given no money will be spent until 2020-21, there's plenty of time for a Senate committee to scrutinise this legislation, to test the government's motivation in establishing the fund and to consider what the government plans to spend the money on.
We see a government that has ignored regional Australia for too long. Their drought policy response has been non-existent. They have come up with on-the-run policy reform at the eleventh hour and expect it to be waved through parliament. Australian farmers and regional communities deserve better. They deserve a government that understands the issues they are facing and will help them prepare for the challenging conditions they're going to face in the future. They deserve a government that has a real plan for whole-of-industry productivity and a resilience-building agenda. They deserve a Shorten Labor government that will work with regional Australia and prepare for the future.
I rise to support the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018, a very important piece of legislation. I support it because it's all about backing our agricultural sector. The Future Drought Fund helps build resilience in the farm sector. It will help the sector prepare for drought and it will help the it recover from drought. We know that droughts are going to come again, and this helps preparedness and readiness. It provides an additional credit of $3.9 billion, which will grow until it reaches $5 billion. Then, from 1 July 2020, the government will draw down $100 million per year to invest in drought resilience projects.
This fund looks to the future of agriculture. In this country, we need to ask ourselves: do we back agriculture or don't we? On this side of the House, the answer is yes, we back agriculture. We support its future and we want it to build and continue to be that key plank of the Australian economy, because, if you think back just a year or two ago to when the Australian economy was struggling a little bit, it was agriculture that got us through. It powered this nation through a very difficult time. If we want a viable farm sector, then we have to back it, and we have to back it to the hilt. That's why this Future Drought Fund and the Future Drought Fund Bill are so important.
I was very disturbed when I heard the member for Hunter say in this House earlier that the opposition wasn't going to back it. It was an extraordinary thing for him to say. But perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised, because in that speech I'm pretty sure I heard him say that we should be surfing the waves of activism. That's what he said. I thought, 'What a ridiculous piece of blather that was, saying to our farmers who are struggling with drought: "Surf the waves of activism!"' In a very difficult time, that's not what they want to hear from their elected representatives in this place. But I guess, with respect to the member for Hunter, and the opposition generally, we shouldn't really be too surprised, when you consider that they're going to strip the retirement savings of 6,500 Calare retirees, including farmers. And, as I've been around this electorate, it's quite clear that the retirees who are going to be affected are not fat cats. These are people you see in your local Lions Club and in Men's Sheds. They are going to lose thousands of dollars. Many of them would not be what you'd call traditional coalition voters, either. But they're not happy, and farmers are amongst those who are going to be hit.
Look at the opposition's approach to decentralisation. We've had some extraordinary decentralisation success stories in this state and in this nation, none more so than the decentralisation of the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries to Orange. And recently we had another part of that success story, with the Regional Investment Corporation, which is soon to have its official opening. It's going to bring 25 to 30 jobs to an area which has been hit by drought, the central west of New South Wales. Everyone in our region gets a shot at those jobs. The Regional Investment Corporation is providing concessional loans to farmers; it's providing funding for water infrastructure projects. These are the types of things that governments—governments of all political persuasions—should be doing. Yet, what has the member for Hunter pledged to do? He pledges to tear it apart and dismantle it. On his side of the House, they profess, at times, to be the champions of government jobs. Yet, when we get a few more jobs in our neck of the woods, they want to rip them out and take them away and shut down a brand new decentralised department.
I guess it's no wonder that the member for Hunter is often called the shadow minister for recentralisation, because he wants to undo all the decentralisation work of this government. I think if there's one thing that people do understand out in the bush, Deputy Speaker Hastie, as you would well know, it's the value of jobs and the value of decentralisation. So, when the member for Hunter tries to put everything back to Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra that gets people's backs up. And it also gets their backs up when not only the member for Hunter but the Labor candidates in the field profess to be the friends of farmers. They say, 'We support farmers, even though we want them to surf the waves of activism,' whatever that blather means. But when they go around our communities and say, 'We support farmers in drought,' they can't explain to the farmers why the Regional Investment Corporation and the jobs it brings to our area is going to be, potentially, torn down if they take over the government benches. They can't explain to farmers why they're not supporting initiatives like the Future Drought Fund. They can't explain it.
Here's another good example: the recent union proposal to dismantle the working holiday visa scheme. In our neck of the woods, we've got a good little orchard industry and we're trying to expand it. We've been working hard to give them better opportunities for export and we've just had some great wins in terms of getting export access around Asia for our stone fruit growers. But, the sad truth is that in order to harvest those crops they rely on backpackers to do it. Years ago, you could get Australian workers to do it, but, and I've seen it over the last few years, slowly but surely, unfortunately, less Australians want to work. So we've just announced the 3-year working holiday visa scheme, yet there is a union proposal, again, to tear it apart—to wreck it. Under this ACTU proposal, they would abolish years 2 and 3 and severely curtail the numbers under year 1. What will that mean? It will mean that fruit will rot on trees and vines and vegetables will rot in paddocks around the country. But they don't seem to be able to front up to the farmers and explain to them why this is happening. They gloss over it with motherhood statements or slogans like 'Don't worry about it; just get out there and surf the waves of activism.' It's an insult. The way they treat the farm sector is an insult.
If I look around my local area, I see so many people working so hard to bring relief to our farmers. This drought has been awful and it's still going on. I look around our local area and I see heroes who are out there working hard, bringing relief to their fellow Australians—people like Anne Jones and Peter Perry, who are from the Geurie Lions Club, just out of Wellington. The Geurie Lions are working with the Wellington Lions to bring a huge amount of relief to our farmers through Lions International. Anne and Peter have a property called Old Station, which is located at Gollan. Anne and Peter have distributed more than 4,685 bales of hay to 554 farming families since July last year. It's an extraordinary effort.
Along with the hay, farmers in need have also received donations of 427 food hampers, 840 stock lick blocks, over 5,000 containers of soft drinks and water, over 500 personal care items, 484 dog food packages and 573 Lions Christmas cakes. This is what our country communities are made of. When the chips are down, one of the great things about country Australia is that we look out for each other, we care for each other and we pass the hat around. In 2011, Anne was Disaster Relief Director for the Lions Club overseeing the distribution of funds to those impacted by the Warrumbungles fire and then again during the Forbes floods in 2016. It's community members like Anne that our country communities rely on.
In the weeks leading up to Christmas, the Kandos Rylstone Men's Shed raised $1,300 for a farm charity. The funds were raised through a raffle which was well supported by the local community. First prize was a 49-inch TV donated by a local businessman who wanted to remain anonymous. To John Medcalf, who is the president, Fred Hoy, the secretary, and Robert Holmes, the vice-president, and the entire team, I'd like to say thank you for your efforts. These are smaller country communities who are doing great things to help their fellow Australians.
The Gulgong Red Cross raised an incredible $900 for the Australian Red Cross Drought Appeal through a street stall on a single day. I met Helen Oakley at the show just a few days ago, and she pointed out that Gulgong has been a member of the Red Cross for 105 years. I think she's been a member for 36. So well done to President Helen and her team, Secretary Bonnie Denning and Treasurer Benison Rodd. We certainly appreciate all of the work that you're doing out there for our country communities.
I was at Lithgow for Australia Day, and they had a dunk tank at the aquatic centre. Kymberley Wilson organised the dunk tank. It was a great way to cool off. I did have a turn on the dunk tank. About $300 was raised. Again, these are country communities coming together to help their fellow Australians. Kymberley was ably assisted by Abby Wilson and Melissa McManus. These are salt of the earth people which our country communities rely on. I mentioned those examples because they are examples of our communities coming together. They are just some of the many that I could talk about.
While our country communities are coming together to battle the drought, so too should our national representatives. They really should be coming together and working together to support initiatives like the Future Drought Fund—but they are not. I think it's a very disappointing thing that you would have the member for Hunter blindly walk into this place and tell our farmers that they should be surfing the waves of activism while trying to destroy yet another key piece of legislation that will help people on the land, people in the bush, who desperately need it at the moment.
The choices are very clear as we head towards this next election. Do you support farmers or don't you? Do you stand with growth and prosperity in country areas or don't you? As I've said many times, it's all very well and good for the member for Hunter to kick around this place in RM Williams boots, but you've got to do more than that. There's got to be more substance to it. You can't do that and have the heart of a socks-and-sandals man—you just cannot do that. But, with legislation like this, I think our farm sector can be assured that those on this side of the House are backing them, and they are backing them with billions of dollars. This drought relief effort is now the biggest in Australia's history, and we are not out of it yet. More is probably going to be needed if the rains don't come. We're going to have to back them again, and on this side of the House we will be there for them when they need us, and we will back them.
Already my colleagues are discussing ways in which we can continue the help if the rains don't come. As I said, the choices are very clear. Those on this side of the House stand with agriculture, and those on that side of the House do not, and I think it's a very disappointing thing. But rest assured that farmers know who's backing them—they know who is backing up the talk with legislation and, most importantly, funding like this. Together we will get through this drought, and the opposition needs to get on board.
With the whole of New South Wales declared 'in drought' during the latter half of last year, 2018, this drought will be recorded as one of the more significant in Australia's history, ranking alongside the Millennium Drought, the drought in the 1960s and the World War II and Federation droughts. But of all of those droughts, only the Millennium Drought saw similar accompanying high temperatures. That's because eight of the 10 warmest years on record in Australia have occurred since 2005, and 2018 is on course to be the fourth warmest year on record. January of this year was our hottest month on record—not our hottest January on record but our hottest month on record. In fact, on 15 January this year, Australia was home to all 15 of the world's hottest temperatures.
This is a sign of things to come. This is what is going to become a much more regular occurrence if we don't tackle climate change. And what does this government do? It comes in here and pretends to be on the side of farmers, but at the same time it's doing everything it can to make global warming worse—to set us on track for a 92 per cent decline in the Murray-Darling Basin by the end of the century and to ensure that we hit that 1½ degree threshold of dangerous global warming as early as 2030.
This government is doing everything it can to make global warming worse. At the very same time as farmers in our country are suffering through this very, very harsh drought, they are doing everything they can to use taxpayers' money to fund coal-fired power stations before the election. They are doing everything they can to see new coalmines opened at the same time as the world's scientists are telling us that by 2030 we have to be getting out of coal. Two-thirds of the world's coal-fired power stations have to shut down by 2030, but this government says, 'How can we make global warming worse,' and uses public money to dig more coal up, have the Adani coalmine opened and, in fact, perhaps open the whole of the Galilee Basin. This government is spitting in the eye of farmers. This government is giving the middle finger to farmers.
If this government actually cared about what is happening on the land and if this government actually wanted to make sure that we can have sustainable agriculture in this country for the remainder of this century, this government would be listening to the scientists and would be pulling out all stops to ensure that by as soon as 2030 we are not tipping over into a dangerous 1½ degrees of global warming.
But what do we have instead? We've got a Prime Minister who comes in here and cradles lumps of coal. He might as well be throwing that straight at every farmer in Australia. He might as well be going to every farmer and saying, 'I don't want you to have a future.' Not only did the Prime Minister and the government come in here and cradle lumps of coal but then they come in here and chortle when thousands of school students—more than 15,000 last year and there will be even more on 15 March—say: 'Hey! We've been paying attention in school. We see this drought that is happening right around the country. We see these extreme weather events. We see the fact that in Tasmania we have just had fires during summer that have destroyed some of the forest that has been there since Gondwanaland and is not going to be able to recuperate, because it's not used to fire. We see all this and we don't want to have to deal it because you are so beholden to the coal lobby that you're going to make the problem worse.'
When they say: 'We now feel that this is a climate emergency and we are going to do what we can as students, because we don't have the right to vote. We're going to take time off school, we're going to go on strike and we're going to march to say, "Help us stop these droughts becoming a regular occurrence, help us stop floods becoming a regular occurrence and help us stop bushfires becoming something that happens to us every Christmas holidays,"' this government turns around and laughs at them as well. It laughs at them and says, 'They have no right to stand up.' Well, people are standing up to this government and saying, 'Enough is enough; stop screwing our future!' Students are saying it, people right across our cities are saying it, people right across the regions are saying it and farmers are saying it. Farmers For Climate Action were here today in this building, saying that they are committed to making sure that parts of their sector are carbon neutral by 2030. What an ambition!
And what does this government do? This government says, 'How can we build more coal fired power station by 2030?' Pollution is going up and up and up on this government's watch at a time when it should be coming down. And so when they come in here and say, 'Oh, please, we'll pretend that we care because we're announcing a future drought fund where we're going to rob the money from some other section of the budget and put it into a bucket where it's not going to be targeted in any particular way and where we can't guarantee that it is actually going to help any farmers in particular,' it's no wonder that the parliament, like the Australia people, is standing up to this government and saying, 'We no longer believe you.'
When you start treating climate change as an optional extra, something you can thumb your nose at, then people will rise up. It's no wonder, and it should come as no surprise, that the reason we are in this minority parliament, where the government faces losing votes on things like climate change, is because they rolled their own Prime Minister over the question of climate change and because he wasn't doing enough to back in the coal-huggers.
The coal-huggers continue to run this government. We see that with this bill. We see it in their lack of action on climate change and their lack of even mentioning climate change. We hear it in the contempt that they show for students, for farmers and for the people who live right around this country every time they stand up and demand a decent climate change policy. I say to the government: it is one of the reasons you are on the verge of being turfed out. It is one of the reasons that the Australian people will say in a few short weeks—and it can't come soon enough—that enough is enough; it is time to take action on climate change. If we care about the drought then we will stop the digging up, the burning and the exporting of coal, because that is one thing that is within our control and it is one thing we must do.
Debate adjourned.
I declare that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
I rise to update the House on the ongoing reckless and arrogant behaviour of the New South Wales Liberal-National government. The 23 March state election will be a referendum on healthcare in the Tweed. Geoff Provest and the Nationals want to impose a nine-storey hospital on state significant farmland at Cudgen, but New South Wales Labor stands with the community in opposing this massive overdevelopment. Instead, Labor will build a new hospital at Kings Forest better, faster and on budget.
The fact is that only New South Wales Labor will build a new $534 million public hospital and keep the current Tweed Hospital in public hands for ongoing health and community services, whilst saving and protecting Cudgen farmlands and Kingscliff from Geoff Provest's Gold Coast-style overdevelopment. It's not too late to save Cudgen and Kingscliff from the National Party and their developer mates. The proposed site at Cudgen hasn't even been purchased, and there are aren't even development approvals in place. So this election will be a referendum on where you want your new hospital built.
The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals should be ashamed of themselves. They're behaving like cowboys, threatening local community groups and flouting Commonwealth laws, whilst Nationals MP Geoff Provest persists with his betrayal, lies and misinformation.
Across the north coast, our community continues to speak up about the many issues and concerns surrounding the location of the hospital. This one issue continues to galvanise locals and draw attention to the betrayal by the National Party of the good people of the Tweed in the Nationals' push to develop the rich, volcanic, state significant farmland at Cudgen. Last week, another rally was held to save the Cudgen plateau from development, with hundreds of people in attendance. I'm proud of the ordinary mums and dads in my community who have shown incredible commitment and perseverance in the face of continued bully-boy antics, snubs and brush-offs by the National Party.
There's a long list of deplorable behaviours by these cowboys, but let me point to a few choice examples of how out of touch and arrogant this New South Wales Liberal-National government really is. Over the course of the last 10 months, a local community group, the Relocate Team, have made repeated requests to meet Nationals MP Geoff Provest to discuss his decision to impose a nine-storey hospital on high-value farmland. For over nine months, he's refused to meet with them. In October 2018, when our community held a peaceful gathering outside his office, he still refused to speak with them, and instead hid in his office, no doubt hoping they would go away. Whilst this was playing out, Geoff Provest's National Party mate, Matthew Fraser, the Nationals' candidate for Richmond, hid a short distance away, behind a bus shelter. He posted a Facebook video vilifying those ordinary community members, calling them 'the great unwashed'. There are dual themes emerging here: arrogance and cowardice. I think it's pretty self-evident what kind of leadership the National Party has shown in our local community.
We saw more of the same in January this year, when the New South Wales Premier flew into Kingscliff for a stealth visit. The Premier didn't alert the media. She refused to meet with locals or hear their concerns, despite repeated requests made by the community. Instead, the Premier exclusively lunched with local National Party members and well-known Cudgen land bankers. In snubbing the Relocate Team, the Premier, like her National Party colleagues, showed nothing but contempt for our community. Our community deserves better than that.
The government's political arm and project partner, Health Infrastructure NSW, have also engaged in bullying behaviour. Health Infrastructure sent threatening letters to dissenting locals, trying to intimidate them into silence. This cheap and nasty stunt highlights the lengths these cowboys will go to when our community wants to be listened to and have action taken.
Environmental concerns are wide ranging, too. I've written to the federal minister, asking for her to intervene under the EPBC Act. In November 2018, the Department of the Environment and Energy wrote to the New South Wales government, outlining their obligations. To date, we've not seen a referral to the department despite evidence of threatened and vulnerable species on or adjacent to the proposed hospital site. The state government have clearly flouted Commonwealth law and breached their responsibilities under the EPBC Act.
Nationals MP Geoff Provest continues to spruik misinformation when it comes to the current Tweed Hospital site. We all know the agenda of the current New South Wales Liberal-National government is to close and sell off the current Tweed Hospital for development. The Nationals' recent claim of free parking at the new hospital is also untrue. The EIS clearly outlines a car parking management plan which includes boom gate access, structured fees for various time periods, multiple payment methods and plans to operate this parking system 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals and Health Infrastructure have underestimated our community's capacity to unite against this most unfair decision. The Nationals' belligerent position to impose a nine-storey hospital on high-yield farming land at Cudgen is morally, ethically and environmentally wrong. It shows the Nationals are not representing our community, and it's so clear that, under the Nationals, you don't count. But, under Labor, you do count. This state election is all about priorities. Labor stands with the community in opposing this massive overdevelopment, and New South Wales Labor will build a new hospital at Kings Forest better, faster and on budget plus keep the current Tweed Hospital in public hands for ongoing health and community services.
I rise to inform the House about some of the exceptional local individuals in Bennelong who have recently been recognised in the Australia Day honours for 2019. We have several recipients of senior awards, which is great testament to the quality and spirit of Bennelong's community. In the field of science, Dr Ronald Ekers of Epping has been made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his contributions to radio astronomy, scientific education and international astronomical organisations. Dr Ekers has been involved in the selection of all major radio telescopes in Australia and South Africa since 2002. He has been a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science since 1993 and has subsequently served in several senior capacities in the academy. In addition, he has been a fellow of the CSIRO for more than 10 years and has lectured at many international universities, including both Oxford and Cambridge. He has published more than 270 scientific papers, with more than 13,000 citations—truly an accomplished career in science. I thank him for his service to our community.
Another local resident of ours has also been made an Officer of the Order of Australia: Professor Peter Robert Schofield of Marsfield. Professor Schofield has had an exceptional career in neuroscience and medical research. This includes roles as a conjoint professor in the faculty of medicine at the University of New South Wales, Chief Executive Officer of Neuroscience Research Australia and numerous roles on the National Health and Medical Research Council. He has been a leading figure in the Australian neuroscience research field for decades, and his contributions are immense. I congratulate him on his award.
I would like to give my thanks also to those who received awards for service to their local communities. Miss Rosemary Costar of West Ryde, who has taught English at St Anne's Anglican Church for more than 25 years and volunteered at the Ryde Lantern Club for just as long, has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia and is a fine example of the many hardworking volunteers who quietly work to enrich our community. I thank her for her service.
Mr William Won-Hong Seung must also be commended for his noble contributions to our community—specifically in relation to his work with a very large and vibrant Korean community both in Bennelong and nationally. He is the founder of the Korean Australian Community Support group and a founder of the Korean festival in Darling Harbour and has previously served as President of the Korean Society of Sydney.
In a similar vein, I would also like to praise the efforts of Mr Yong Ja Lee for his recent award of the Medal of the Order of Australia for services to the Korean community. He is currently President of the Australian Korean Welfare Association and has previously served as president of the Sydney Inner West Lions Club. Bennelong is a wonderfully successful multicultural community thanks to the efforts of people like Mr Seung and Mr Lee.
Finally, I'd like to highlight one honorary member of the Bennelong community: Mr Ian Dear, who has been awarded the Order of Australia for services to charity. I say honorary member of Bennelong because, despite living in Huntleys Cove, just outside our borders, Mr Dear has been an instrumental member of Stryder, formerly Ryde Hunters Hill Community Transport. Stryder has a very strong presence in Bennelong assisting those with mobility limitations through their transport services so they can still live independent lives. Mr Dear has been president of Stryder since 2017 but has volunteered with the organisation for over a decade. In addition, he's been very active in charity groups in New South Wales, having held senior roles in organisations such as Youth Off The Streets, the NSW State Emergency Service, Cure Cancer Australia and the Muscular Dystrophy Association. We are very lucky to have hardworking individuals such as Mr Dear in our community. His award is truly well deserved.
I rise to speak tonight in complete outrage at what the Marshall state Liberal government in South Australia has done this week. What they've done is rip the rug of security out from under inner-western suburbs families. Without any warning, the Marshall Liberal government has announced changes to the Adelaide High School zones that will exclude suburbs in the inner west—suburbs such as Torrensville, Mile End, Hilton, Richmond, Marlestone, Kurralta Park, Glandore, Black Forest and Clarence Park—all of which previously had been in the zone. There had been a promise by the Marshall Liberal government, then in opposition, that they would not change the zones. It was a promise that was made in the lead-up to the last state election. This week we saw them backflip on that promise and pull the rug out from under a lot of families who had specifically moved into that area so their children could go to Adelaide High School. The plans of many families who, as I said, moved in so their kids could go to Adelaide High School have now been up-ended with no consultation and no warning.
It was an election promise to expand the schools to include year 7 students. The state Liberals assured constituents, when they were asked, that this would not impact the take or the rezoning of these schools. As soon as they were elected, in less than a year, they backflipped. When he was asked about it, the Minister for Education, John Gardner, said there was plan to change any zones. Fast-forward a few months and they've thrown that right out the window, letting down all those families.
I must pay tribute to some of my state colleagues who have been running a campaign against this. Jayne Stinson, the member for Badcoe, and Tom Koutsantonis, the member for West Torrens have been supporting literally hundreds and hundreds of families who have contacted them in anger. The same families are contacting me via email and telephone calls and through Twitter and other social media. They are angry that they were told something before the election and told something straight after the election, and they were lied to. These people have a right to be angry. They currently have a petition going around that has already gained thousands of signatures since the week of the announcement. Families are pleading with the Marshall Liberal government to do the right thing and reinstate the original zones for Adelaide High School and Adelaide Botanic High School. I urge Mr Marshall to listen to these families and do the right thing by making good the commitment he made prior to and after the state election. It will reinstate confidence in our public school system, which is something, I know, that the Liberal state government have trouble funding and supporting in a meaningful way.
Why must I again raise this issue? Why is it always the inner-western suburbs that miss out in South Australia? Why is it always those suburbs that I mentioned earlier? Is it because they elect Labor MPs in those areas and therefore the government think they can cut them off and not worry about them? This was a promise that was made prior to the state election, and the government should keep their promise. They should make sure that they rezone the area to include the suburbs that I mentioned—suburbs where people bought houses, moved into specifically, so their children could go to Adelaide High School. It is a great high school, which I attended for a number of years in the seventies.
These parents have an absolute right to be angry, to feel that they've been lied to and to want the Liberal state government in South Australia to do something about it, rather than wiping their hands and saying it's got nothing to do with them; it's just part of the rezoning. They promised prior to the state election that there would be no changes. They were elected and, when they announced that year 7 students would go into high school, they again promised that there would be absolutely no change to the rezoning. Here we are a few months later and they have lied to the parents, their constituents. They've lied to the people who made a commitment to buying and renting houses in particular areas so their children could go to Adelaide High, which specialises in languages, sport and many other activities for students. I urge the Premier of South Australia—the Liberal Premier, Mr Marshall—to reverse his decision, to make sure that he commits to the promises he made, and to ensure that those parents have a fair hearing. There will be more noise made about this. I can see this carrying on until the decision is overturned. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to commend 15 community organisations in my electorate of Menzies who are recipients under round 4 of the Stronger Communities grants. There were 15 organisations in the previous round, round 3, and another 15 in this round 4. It's been a delight to work with these various organisations, the office-bearers and officials, to secure these grants which are so important for local communities. The first one is a very significant one—that is, Onemda, a disability service in my electorate based in Doncaster East. This service was commenced in 1969 by a group of parents and by volunteers. Eventually, they grew it, they moved to the current premises in 1977 and they've continued to provide services for people who are disabled in the immediate area and even more broadly than that over many, many decades. This grant is to fit out the innovation centre and also the acquisition and installation of technical equipment.
The second organisation is the Park Orchards Football Club—that is, a grant to move the electronic scoreboard and increase the window size for timekeepers as well as building a bench to make the area more comfortable for volunteer timekeepers and also improve and extend shelving and storage space. It reminds, Mr Speaker, us of the great work that volunteers do in all sorts of organisations in sporting cultural social organisations not just in my electorate, in your electorate, sir, and throughout Australia.
A third grant is to the south Warrandyte Football Club for the purchase and installation of an electronic video scoreboard, as well as site works. Again, this is another wonderful sporting club in the electorate. It gives an outlet for young people and older people to play sport, to be involved in physical exercise, which is good for both their physical and mental health.
The next grant is to the Schrams Sports Club to purchase foldaway tables, a TV and a trophy cabinet, which will benefit the three co-tenant clubs of the reserve who use that facility—namely, the Fitzroy Doncaster Cricket Club, the Doncaster Junior Football Club and the Doncaster Seniors Football Club.
Another grant goes to the Vantage Point Church in Donvale. This is to purchase a vehicle to provide pastoral care to elderly people who are shut in or in nursing homes and cannot access the care that they need alone. Mobility for older people is so important. We all have parents, relatives who are growing old, who don't have the mobility that they have had in the past. To have services like that provided by Vantage Point Church to be able to go out and transport to people to take them to shopping, to take them to a medical appointment, to take them to visit people is very important for the lifestyle of elder Australians.
The Bulleen Templestowe District Junior Football Club is in receipt of a grant for ICT equipment, a barbecue, and signage for their facility. The 1st Templestowe Scout Group is to update their toilet facilities. This will include removing existing toilets and flooring and renovating two toilets and a washing area. Often, many of these clubs operate in buildings that were constructed in the 1970s or 1980s, and the facilities are not up to scratch for what is required today, and this is a good example of a grant going to a wonderful organisation—namely, the Scouting group—in order to provide for the people coming through their programs.
The Manningham Cobras Football Club will receive a grant to install electronic scoreboard to replace the current manual one. Equally, the Donvale Cricket Club is to purchase two medium-sized turf pitch covers, two cricket pitch hessians and a new bowling machine. The Croydon Hills Baptist Church will purchase a vehicle to transport and carry equipment and purchase garden equipment to enable more Karen refugees from the local community to be able to work in the local community. The Donvale Football Club will receive a grant for the installation of behind-the-goals netting, which will provide a type of fencing to catch balls and also provide necessary safeguards for the players currently attempting to retrieve balls from the nearby busy road. Sharing Hope in Croydon Hills will purchase new ICT equipment to provide the help needed for their work with the Karen community refugees in the local area.
St Haralambos Greek Orthodox Church will carry out urgent and required repairs to the roof and plumbing including the connection of downpipes, drains and critical upgrades of electricity capacity. The Bulleen Templestowe Sports Club will purchase new equipment. And, finally, the Kevin Heinze Garden Centre in Doncaster will convert part of their site into a stand-alone multipurpose group room to deliver programs for young people, particularly the disabled. All are worthy recipients of these grants.
It's been a real privilege over the last week to hear the valedictories of people like the member for Adelaide, Kate Ellis; the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan; and then, this afternoon, the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin. It had me reflecting on what they might have thought when they started their careers compared with now and I heard their reflections on that period of time. I've only been in this place a very short period of time, but I reflected on my maiden speech and what I said my priorities were going to be, and to reflect on those is something very useful.
The people of Solomon—Darwin and Palmerston, the capital of the north—put their trust in me to represent them here. What I said to them as their member of parliament was that I would ensure that no-one gets left behind and that the northern capital of Australia would not get left behind. I would fight to make sure that the federal government was true to the commitments that it made and that we would continue to build for the benefit of our whole country a stronger Darwin, which will always lead to a more secure Australia. I promised to fight for investment in public infrastructure and for jobs for people in my electorate and for those in the broader Territory. I promised to fight for Charles Darwin University and for the Top End to become Australia's base for our government's disaster and emergency medical responses. I promised to keep the coalition government to account for its oft-repeated promises to deliver a PET scanner to help, in particular, Territorians who were affected by cancer. And I promised to hold the government to account to build the Palmerston Regional Hospital. I was very passionate about doing that, because, in fact, as a member of the federal Labor team prior to the 2013 election, I secured an extra $40 million for the delivery of that hospital. So it was very important to me to make sure that a first-class hospital was built, and it has been.
And there was a range of other coalition government promises that, over this period, both as a member of the federal Labor team and as an elected member of this parliament, I have been working to keep the government to account on. Some of these have been delivered, some not. But I also remember talking about the fact that in 1986—when I was going to school your electorate, Mr Speaker—my parents took me on a trip through the Northern Territory. One of the big reminders of that for me in recent times was when the Leader of the Opposition committed $220 million to Kakadu, that being something that made a big impression on me. It will make a great impression on all Australians and visitors from overseas for years to come.
One of the other things I've been urging—and I thank the member for Corio, the shadow minister for defence for his commitment on this—is to work with industry and the NT government to make sure that local businesses get a better go when it comes to defence projects in the north. Something that was also very close to my heart was to make sure that we supported veterans. I want to thank the member for Kingston for the commitment of $4.9 million by federal Labor. When we come to government in the future we can deliver that for veterans and first responders in the Northern Territory.
I haven't stopped working since the day I was elected to earn the trust of the people of Darwin and Palmerston, who depend on very few of us to make sure that issues that are important to them are properly represented down here in Canberra. I'm very proud to be a member of the Bill Shorten Labor team. I'm very thankful for the commitment that I have from my colleagues and I'm very happy that we are well placed to keep delivering for the north, because a strong Darwin will always mean a more secure Australia.
On this quiet Wednesday evening I want to take the opportunity to reflect. I'm only on borrowed time now, Mr Speaker, before I finish with my term as the member for Mallee. No-one chooses to go out in disgrace, and, as I look back over the time, I note that there are some great things that we have achieved for some really decent people across the Wimmera and Mallee, and I want to reflect on those. When I came into Mildura as a federal member of parliament, it was a town that needed significant investment. We put some surety back into the irrigation scheme with the Sunraysia Modernisation Project phases 1 and 2—$106 million. We invested $10 million to upgrade the airport so that people could come into the town. We also upgraded the railway line with $240 million, and we put in 11 NBN towers around Mildura.
We also did something for the homeless and the people who support those going through difficult times, with $2.4 million for MASP, the Mallee Accommodation and Support Program. There was $20 million to upgrade the Calder Highway with some overtaking lanes. I am very pleased to see a contribution of federal money to see Mildura getting a radiation treatment bunker. We also stood by the people of Horsham with cancer issues. We secured $1 million, the community raised $1 million and then the state government subsequently chipped in some money to deliver cancer services in Horsham. There was $900,000 for the Horsham North Children's Hub. There are mobile phone towers all across the area. You can now make a mobile call area nearly anywhere in the electorate of Mallee.
We fought pretty hard for the Wartook Valley after it was burnt out and Sheep Hills. There was $10 million for the Grampian Peak Trail; $800,000 to do up Stawell's streetscape; $800,000 for Charlton Park and their sports facility, which is now under construction; and $450,000 for Donald and their sports facility. The Silo Arts Trail got $200,000 from the federal government. I remember having a discussion when the minister said, 'What; you want to paint silos? How is that going to be regional development?' It's been a real success.
We stood by the Korean refugees in Nhill and got some money to get the Paw Po store open. There was some money to upgrade facilities at Lake Charlegrark and lakes around Wooroonook and others lakes. There was $670,000 to build a recreational lake at Ouyen. There was funding for Edenhope for their town hall and for Harrow for their sports facility. There was also $16.8 million to upgrade the riverfront in Swan Hill, which is going to take place, and about $800,000 for their saleyards. We've stood by Robinvale and got some money for those communities and the sister city of Villers-Bretonneux, to make them very proud of the heritage.
I'm particularly proud that we worked with children with type 1 diabetes. The advocacy was started in the Mallee, and now every child in Australia with type 1 diabetes gets a continuous glucose monitor subsidised by the federal government. Australia-wide intervention orders came out of our office, so that you can be on either side of the Murray River and be protected from someone who's a perpetrator of family violence. Safe Haven Enterprise visas—a compassionate approach to deal with people who've lived and worked in regional areas and give them a pathway to eventually settle in Australia—was something that also came out of our office.
Unfortunately, I won't be here to see some of the further projects that need to be done, but I want to put them on the record because they are good projects. We should fund $12 million for the Mitiamo Water Pipeline Project. It beggars belief that it hasn’t been funded already. We should put 30 full-time jobs from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority actually where the Murray and the Darling are located, which would be Wentworth and Mildura. There is $8.9 million required to upgrade the Wimmera Intermodal Freight Terminal. It's time that there is a $50 million commitment towards a new hospital in Swan Hill—it's the oldest hospital in Victoria and it's falling down—and $20 million commitment towards building a bridge in Swan Hill. A commitment of $10 million is required to build the AFL outdoor ovals. I'm pleased that AFL Australia want to run a pre-season game there and outline our opposition to family violence—that champion footballers don't hit women—and role model that for our kids. There's $5 million required for Mildura riverfront upgrade stage 2, and $5 million for the Wimmera riverfront. A lot's been done, but there's more to be done, and the people deserve it.
House adjourned at 20:00
On Monday, 4 February I was very proud to announce that, under a Labor government, the people of the western suburbs of Adelaide will at long last have access to a fully Medicare funded MRI machine at their local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Under the last Labor government, a comprehensive review of diagnostic imaging was undertaken, which resulted in 238 MRI licences being granted across the country. It was in this review that the QEH got its first MRI licence in 2012, a partially rebatable licence that, for the first time, gave western suburbs residents the ability to get scans at their local hospital with Medicare rebates for a limited number of conditions.
But it quickly became apparent to me, through discussions with clinicians and local residents, that the QEH needs a fully rebatable MRI licence. People in parts of my electorate find themselves needing to travel up to 45 minutes to access a Medicare funded MRI machine, a challenge that just got even harder with the Marshall Liberal government's cruel cuts to public transport across Adelaide. I first wrote to the then Minister for Health, Peter Dutton, in 2014 asking for a fully rebatable MRI licence to be considered by the Commonwealth. I got no response from that minister. I again wrote to the Commonwealth government last year, with the then new Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, and we still got no action from this government—a government that, until September last year, had only granted five new Medicare licences in five years for MRI machines for the whole nation.
Labor has decided that the people of Adelaide's west have waited long enough. We aren't waiting for this government to catch up. My constituents deserve local services in their local hospital. Residents of the west currently face the sixth longest wait times in the country for specialist referrals for MRI scans. The western suburbs have half as many MRI licences per capita as other locations, as well as having a population with a high concentration of older Australians, people with chronic disease and low-income families.
I have long fought to ensure that the QEH has quality services for locals, standing up for the continued provision of cardiac, palliative, oncology and other services at the QEH and now making sure that a Labor government will give the western suburbs proper access to MRI scans with Medicare rebates. This government has neglected the west, and it's neglected our hospital. I call on it to act now and to ensure that thousands of western suburbs residents don't have to wait a moment longer for proper MRI access. Labor stands for quality health care, and I will always stand up for the QEH, now and into the future.
It's a great pleasure to stand in this place and speak about the great job that our childcare centres are doing around the fantastic electorate of Forde. I've had opportunities of late to go and visit a number of these great childcare centres and spend some time reading to and doing some other activities with the kids. Those are great opportunities for us to see the great work these childcare centres are doing and the benefits to those centres—and, more importantly, to the families whose children attend the centres—of our new childcare package. Nearly 9,000 families in the electorate of Forde are better off under that package.
I want to particularly single out a couple of childcare centres for some great work that they're doing: the Edens Landing Childrens Centre and the Waterford West Education and Care Centre. Firstly, I'll go to the Edens Landing Childrens Centre. We all know the time pressures on families these days and how important it is for mums and dads to actually get some time together, and the Edens Landing childcare centre has sought to assist that by providing the opportunity for kids to stay longer at the centre and for mum and dad to have a date night. I think that's a great initiative of the Edens Landing childcare centre because it gives parents the opportunity just to have some time together, safe in the knowledge that their kids are being well looked after. And the team at the Edens Landing Childrens Centre do a great job. It's great to see those opportunities taken.
In addition, the Edens Landing Childrens Centre, in partnership with the Waterford West Education and Care Centre, are launching a new nature explorer program. The program will be run over different days during the week, and it offers the opportunity for kids to get out and learn more about nature. It's designed to show children the importance of looking after the natural environment. But it's also good for kids to get out and play in the natural environment, as many of us probably did as kids, running around the bush and the paddocks. Kids don't do that as much these days, and I think it's great to see kids doing that and learning more about our local native environment.
One of the things that is terrific in and around Edens Landing is that the Logan City Council has done a great job with their parks for the community to use, so there are great opportunities for these childcare centres to get the kids out of the centres and into the natural environment. I congratulate them on their initiative.
I rise today as honoured as ever to represent the wonderful electorate of Macarthur in south-west Sydney. As I have remarked many times in this place since coming into office in 2016, I'm immensely proud to represent the people of Macarthur. My community is unique. It's a vibrant, outer-metropolitan region with a rural and regional charm. The people of Macarthur are decent, hardworking Australians from all walks of life. As a local paediatrician for nearly four decades, I think I have a special insight into their day-to-day lives and the challenges that families have and the essential role that government and services play in making their lives easier.
Unfortunately, my constituents, in the community that I know and love, feel let down by the present government. I don't want to be overly negative at this point but will plead with the government, once again, to take heed of my advice.
The reality is that far too many of our older Australians are having difficulty in accessing supports through social security. We know that far too many calls to Centrelink went unanswered last year, and this is a direct result of the government's cuts to staff. Still, to this day, I am contacted by constituents who are waiting many months for their age-pension applications to be processed. These are people who are legally entitled to access the pension; yet they're left to wait many months before they can get any payment from the federal government through Centrelink. They're literally living in poverty, while their applications sit in a pending tray in the Department of Human Services. We know that many older Australians are waiting for up to nine or 10 months for their payments to commence, and it appears that this issue is completely unresolved. Usually, I can get some results for my elderly constituents who have trouble contacting Centrelink, and I encourage them to continue to contact my office to see if we can help. But this is a government that seems completely uncommitted to resolving the issues at Centrelink for the most disadvantaged in our community. If Labor form government, we'll boost Centrelink with another 1,200 permanent full-time jobs to improve Centrelink services and make life easier for pensioners.
I've already spoken this week about the mismanagement of the NDIS—and it is mismanagement. There are systemic problems with the NDIS which this government ignores and presents platitudes in the parliament whenever questioned about it. The government know my advice and they need to act on it urgently. Macarthur residents who are already struggling with the rising cost of living have experienced stagnant wage growth and some have had their penalty rates cut by those opposite. I know how important those penalty rates are in making ends meet for some of the families who are really struggling. Labor are committed to re-enforcing and returning penalty rates to those who have lost them. Labor have a range of fantastic policy initiatives that we have previously discussed with the fair go for all Australians.
Last Friday, my wife and I attended a resilience breakfast at Sunrise Way, an alcohol and drug rehabilitation centre in our home of Toowoomba. Resilience was obviously the topic, the theme, of this breakfast. It was tremendous to hear from the guest speaker, former Wallaby Andrew Slack, who, in a fairly humble, self-deprecating speech, explained his own need for resilience from time to time in dealing with the challenges of life and his own career, obviously. He explained that he was no different from anyone else when faced with challenges: we simply need to get on with it. It was the theme that reflected the history of Sunrise Way, this drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, since its establishment some years ago.
Wendy Agar, the CEO, hosted a tremendous breakfast. She and Carla Canning and others lead a great team at Sunrise Way, and I congratulate them, as well as the board led by a good friend of mine, Shane Charles, for their ongoing efforts. Sunrise Way has had a history of originally being supported by community leaders, including Doug Harland and, most particularly, the then mayor, Di Thorley, who got behind the concept of establishing this drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre in our city to service the region. I congratulate them. I also congratulate the Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service, led by Dr Peter Gillies, and the chair, Mike Horan, and so many others in our community for getting behind it. I guess that is the focus of Sunrise Way: to continue to secure community support this important work.
Sunrise Way has really got on with the job. It has not defended the efforts of many to seek government funding, although that's very important going forward. They've got on with the job and, as former Wallaby Andrew Slack said: they certainly got on with the job to secure support from the community. So this is largely community funded. They haven't waited, they haven't demanded government funding, but they have been able to secure it from time to time. This is very much led by the community.
I want to congratulate those involved. I want to ensure that people know that patients are the resilient heroes from Sunrise Way. At the breakfast, we heard from two graduates. One was a young man who explained his efforts to get off ice, in particular, and his recognition of the stress that he was causing his family. Sunrise Way enabled him to realise that and to start putting his life back together. The other was an older gentleman who recognised that he needed to not only quit those habits but also not keep company with those who had encouraged him to do it in the past—another wonderful learning exercise. Congratulations Sunrise Way for your ongoing efforts in our community.
Colleagues, in my statement today, I want to draw attention to the rollout of the NDIS in Indi. I want to highlight some of the problems constituents are dealing with, and I want to put a call out to my community to come to the second NDIS community information forum, which will be held in Benalla on 28 March. Finally, colleagues, I'd like to let you know that I'm not standing for election in May, but I'm encouraging my supporters to back Helen Haines, who has a huge commitment to health and wellbeing. I know she will continue to carry the flag of better service delivery for people with disabilities in our electorate.
Constantly we get constituents coming to my office, and they write letters about problems with the NDIS. While it's a great scheme and it has huge potential, it's not reaching its potential at the moment. To address that, in August last year we worked with the NDIA to hold two community forums, one in Wangaratta and one in Wodonga. These were really well attended. I thank the NDIA for their presence. But there were a number of issues that weren't addressed at the time, and the NDIA said they would come back in six months and report back to the community on what they had achieved. That meeting will be in Benalla on Thursday, 28 March, parliament commitments being willing.
I wanted to bring to the House some of the main problems we're experiencing with the NDIS. As a result, we put some questions in writing to the minister: 'In respect of the NDIS, what is the nominated time frame of a plan?' The minister wrote back to me telling me the NDIA does not currently have nominated time frames between plan submission for approval and plan approval. Why don't we have time frames? Why don't we have KPIs? It seems a very straightforward thing to do that would help in the planning of it. So, a call out to the minister to address that.
Another question we asked was, 'Why do clients receive final plans that are inadequate and have to wait for up to a year or more to have their plans revised?' The NDIA tell us that they've received more work than they can handle on this. They haven't got enough staff to address it. So, a call out for more staff, to do what needs to be done so we can actually get this program working.
In closing, I want to thank the individuals, the families, the advocates and the service providers who have given such support to the rollout in rural and regional Australia. I say to them, come to the community forum on the 28th and we will do the next stage of delivery. We'll have experts there, we'll have community providers there, we'll have families there and we'll have individuals there who are experiencing the problems, and then we will make a commitment to get the plan ready for after the election. What do we need to do so that the NDIS can really reach its potential?
I want to update you today in relation to phenomes. A phenome is a dynamic fingerprint of your body. By analysing the chemicals in the body, researchers can uncover the complex interactions of genetics, lifestyle and environmental factors that contribute to a person's individual health and their disease risk. The study of phenomes will revolutionise health care. I was pleased that Health Minister Greg Hunt returned to Murdoch University in my electorate of Tangney to announce that the Morrison government will provide $10 million to the Australian National Phenome Centre for world-leading research. The Australian National Phenome Centre, at Murdoch University, is Australia's first dedicated phenome laboratory, and brings together all five of WA's universities and leading medical research institutes. It will also connect into the International Phenome Centre Network.
Western Australia will be at the forefront of international precision medicine. Murdoch University will foster the billions of researchers like Professors Jeremy Nicholson, Elaine Holmes, Robert Trengove and Ruey Leng Loo. These researchers have a key role in revolutionising the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of serious health challenges like cancer, Alzheimer's, autism and type 2 diabetes. Their research will help to save and transform lives.
This government is supporting phenome research and the Australian National Phenome Centre at Murdoch University because it will mean real benefits for every Australian. It will help us to live longer and healthier lives, and will bring hope to thousands suffering untreatable and life-threatening diseases. This government's $10 million in funding for the National Phenome Centre comes from our landmark Medical Research Future Fund. This fund will double Australia's investment in health and medical research.
The $500 million Australian Genomics Health Futures Mission is a centrepiece of the $1.3 billion national health and medical industry growth plan announced in the 2018-19 budget. This record funding in world-leading research is possible because of good and strong economic management. By keeping our economy strong, we can make record investments in essential health initiatives like medical research.
Australia has a world-class health system and a long history of being at the forefront of new medical research breakthroughs. The critical research carried out at the Australian National Phenome Centre at Murdoch University will position Perth and WA as a global leader in precision medicine and will enable quantum leaps in the prediction and treatment of disease.
I rise today to advise my constituency and people around it about a great opportunity for local community groups, sporting organisations, faith based institutions, local schools, TAFEs and universities to permanently house one of the what I call brilliant Armistice centenary commemorative paintings. Last year, to commemorate the Armistice centenary, we awarded $28,210 to Provenance Artists under the Armistice Centenary Grants Program. What happened is that Provenance Artists commissioned over 20 local artists to paint commemorative paintings for a special Holt Armistice 100-year fine art exhibition.
I think one of the things that was most impressive about what Provenance Artists did commissioning these 20 local artists was that they met with the RSL and asked, 'What is the best way, through art, that we can articulate, express and commemorate Armistice Day 1918 and the centenary of it in 2018?' What they did through paintings that were exhibited at the mechanics hall when they launched in October 2018, at the Casey Central shopping centre in November and also at the Cranbourne RSL in December 2018 was brilliantly encapsulate what it meant to be there, what it is like to be a relative of one of the soldiers who were there and what it was like there. So we have these almost priceless paintings that now comprise an exhibition.
For young people that art speaks to—and it still does speak to them—it's a great way of articulating to them very powerful and viscerally an experience and communicating it briefly, succinctly and powerfully. This group of paintings that has been commissioned by Provenance Artists is something that I want to be permanently distributed to members of my community. So what I'm calling for—and we'll have the details when we put this clip up—is for people within my constituency to apply to house one of these paintings. Some of the artists that have painted these paintings would normally charge $10,000 or $15,000 for a commissioned painting. They were paid a lot less, but the quality of the art—and I saw it in people's reactions at the Casey Central shopping centre and at the RSL—is great, communicating a powerful message about the sacrifice of our soldiers. I urge anyone in my constituency who wants one of these paintings to apply to our office. Lest we forget.
I welcome the end of Woolworths' $1 milk price. While 20c more for a two-litre bottle of milk is only a very small change, it's a huge change for dairy farmers and it's a massive change for the milk industry. Woolworths has acted responsibly by moving the $1 milk price cap, helping dairy farmers to get a better return for their product. Many people said it wouldn't be done and that $1 milk was here to stay. But, with the farmers and the dairy organisations, we persisted. I listened to my local dairy farmers and took the fight to the big retailers. This move by Woolworths shows that, by shining a light on the devastating impacts of $1 milk through the work of the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation and their members, my speeches in parliament and the resolve of my National Party colleagues, Woolworths has listened and acted.
In my maiden speech, I said:
When it comes to agriculture big business needs to play fair. The Coles and Woolies milk price war has had a devastating effect on farmers, who deserve to receive a fair price for their product.
I've always said that retail influences the value of the supply chain and, in order for dairy farmers to be paid more, the artificial cap on the price of milk has to go. Woolworths' cessation of this involvement in the milk price war is not a silver bullet, but it's a very welcome step and it's certainly a step in the right direction. When I took a look at the issue, Coles and Woolworths were locked in this battle of brinkmanship, which began back in 2011, leaving farmers all the poorer. After many meetings with dairy farmers, industry groups and Woolworths, we finally have a breakthrough. This move by Woolworths, combined with the Liberal-National government's mandatory code of conduct for the dairy industry puts dairy farmers in a better position, but there'll still more work to do.
Now that Woolworths is removing $1 milk from their shelves, Coles and Aldi have to follow suit. They have nowhere to hide on this. It's time for Coles and Aldi to look after their dairy farmers—remove the $1-milk price cap and pay them a fair price. The dairy industry has been decimated by the farm gate price and by drought. We can't control the weather, but Woolworths has demonstrated that the retailers have the capacity to influence farm gate prices by paying an extra 10 cents per litre directly to the farmer. I commend Woolworths for taking this first step and I encourage everyone to support dairy farmers by shopping at Woolworths.
I'm really proud of my community. It's a community where people have a go. Regardless of their economic status, who their parents are or whether or not they have a disability, they have a go. In fact, many people living with a disability in our community have accomplished so, so much. Disability advocates like Bill, Matt, Cody and Trish are some of the strongest voices in our community, and others, like Shane, go about their day without letting anything hold them back. Each of these people is strong and courageous, but each of them needs our support from time to time, which is why Labor established the NDIS back in 2013. Despite difficulties from the Liberal government, the NDIS has finally made its way to the Moreton Bay region, as of January this year.
But, further than that, we must support students with disability through their schooling. Every Australian child should be able to go to any Australian school that they want to. That's why I'm so proud of today's announcement by the shadow minister for education, Tanya Plibersek. It's an announcement that commits an extra $300 million investment to ensure that students with a disability get the support they need in school. The number of students assessed as eligible for disability funding in Australia has doubled, from 220,000 to around 450,000. While our state Labor government is doing some great work in this space, like building the new Caboolture State High Special School, one of only three such schools in Queensland, the federal Liberal government is letting these students down. Despite the need doubling, funding under the Liberals has increased by only about seven per cent. This means students with a disability are missing out, and that is simply not good enough. We are letting these students down.
Labor's extra funding will deliver individualised learning for students with a disability by paying for more teachers, more teacher aids, more teacher training, updated technology and accessibility upgrades for our schools, and, like I said, it doesn't matter which school you choose to send your child to. But just as importantly, schools must be accountable for how the extra investment improves education for these students. This $300 million investment is designed to make sure that students with a disability can reach their full potential in any school system, and it comes in addition to the disability loading and Labor's record investment in local schools. The government has neglected students with disabilities, dragged its feet on the disability royal commission and bungled elements of the NDIS for people living with a disability. These people deserve much better.
Before I call the member for Calare, I'd like to state that, if no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes.
This year I attended Australia Day celebrations in Eglinton, Oberon, Lithgow, Wallerawang and Yeoval. It was a great day across the region and a chance to reflect on how lucky we are to be Aussies. Australia Day is a time to celebrate some of the outstanding members and community groups we have. I'd like to recognise the award winners from Portland and Wellington in the Calare electorate.
In Portland, Gary O'Reilly was named 2019 citizen of the year. Gary is involved in a number of local organisations, including the Men's Shed. Austin Bradley was named young citizen of the year for his work with the Fusion Youth Centre. Community event of the year was the Portland pop-up markets. Well done, Rich and Kellie Evans. The sporting event of the year went to Portland Touch Football Association's Nick Way Memorial Knockout. The Portland Art Society received a recognition award for its continued success over 43 years. Kim Phillips received a recognition award for her service with the Portland SES. Jayden Rhodes received the 2018 Caltex All Rounder Award for his excellent contribution to sport and school. St Joseph's sports awards were awarded to Mia Dunleavy, Yasmine Turner, Libby Bailey and Annika Taylor for their participation in the St Joseph's Diocesan Relay Team. St Joseph's sports awards went to Taylor Bennett and Nate Green for their representation in sport. The Portland Central School sports awards went to Nickera Hann for cricket and Joshua Moffitt for swimming. A special award was presented to Portland Australia Day coordinator John Kearns for his help with community events.
In Wellington the awards went to five recipients. Scott Pettett has volunteered for six years with Communities for Children events. Also awarded were Naomi Jeffery, for her work with the Wellington Eisteddfod Committee; Erica Baigent, for her work with the Mount Arthur Trust; Bev Hutchinson, who has volunteered and been involved with the Wellington Show Society for 15 years; and Lisa Thomas, who was recognised for her involvement with Wellington Arts. The 2019 community event of the year went to Fong Lee's Lane. The 2019 junior sports person of the year award went to Bianca-Leigh Douglas. The 2019 sports person of the year went to Justin Toomey-White for his contribution to rugby league. Well done to those two recipients. Geena Purcell was named 2019 young citizen of the year. She was the first Wellington Show girl to represent her home town as a state finalist. Well done, Geena. Bill Redfern was named 2019 senior citizen of the year. He's involved in a range of committees and clubs. Tyrone Kiernan was named 2019 citizen of the year. Doris Hoffman was recognised for her service to the community and received a Medal of the Order of Australia. Doris has volunteered in a number of organisations—Teleaide, Wellington Oxley Museum and Binjang Community Radio to name just a few. Congratulations and well done to all of the Australia Day nominees and award winners in the Calare electorate.
I stand here today to say to the LNP government: how dare you not agree to more sitting days in order to enact the recommendations of the banking royal commission that would help protect Townsville residents from insurance companies after our worst ever weather event. There are people in Townsville who are trying to lodge insurance claims to fix the damage to their homes that have been destroyed. There are people trying to make claims for their furniture and belongings that have been ruined by floodwater. People are trying to get their lives back on track but are being given the run-around. People feel their claims are being ignored or denied by insurance companies when these insurance companies must pay up.
Labor has put multiple bills before this parliament that would enact recommendations from the banking royal commission, and one in particular would help Townsville residents right now. Right now, there is a bill that would give ASIC the power to have oversight over claims being handled by insurance companies. This bill is vital for Townsville's flood-affected victims who are right now fighting with their insurance companies.
Chris and Claire, in Bluewater, have two properties and have never made a claim. Their Bluewater property has been destroyed in the flood and this will be their first claim. On 11 February a construction company arrived at their house to pressure-wash the building. There had been no communication with them about this happening. Chris advised that they were waiting for the property to be cleared out; but, as the construction company did not have a scope of work or purchase order, they were unable to continue. An assessor came out on Tuesday, 12 February. The assessor got the amount of cover wrong and led Chris and Claire to believe they would receive more. A building inspector came with him but they were not able to access the house because it was unsafe to do so. The communication between the parties is poor and they only have a contact number for the insurance company.
Three weeks later their house remains full of wrecked furniture, a full fridge and freezer. The house has been completely taken over by mould. They have lost any chance they had to salvage some contents, given that they only received $16,000, minus excesses, for rebuilding their lives from scratch. All Chris and Claire want is to clear out their contents and to have the builders' assessments so that they can at least move forward. Both Chris and Claire have been unable to work since the event, as they wait every single day for the clearing out to start.
Labor has their back. We want to give ASIC more power to look after them and other Townsville residents affected by the floods, but the LNP government are refusing to protect Townsville residents. The LNP government clearly aren't a government for North Queensland. They are a government for banks and insurance companies. They have proven it time and time again. Townsville needs Labor's bill enacted now. People like Chris and Claire need ASIC protection now. How dare the LNP put insurance companies before Townsville flood victims? I demand that the LNP government extend parliament and pass this bill immediately.
Provision needs to be made for improved health services in order to meet the anticipated need arising from the growth in population of Perth's northern coastal suburbs. The public hospital and emergency department at Joondalup Health Campus are extremely busy and are approaching their full operating capacity as the regional population grows beyond 300,000 residents. Planning for a new regional medical facility is essential in order to maintain a high standard of patient care and minimise waiting times for our residents.
I fully support the proposal by St John Ambulance WA seeking federal government funding to implement a trial of 10 urgent care centres, which provide an alternative to patients presenting to emergency departments for non-life-threatening conditions. The trial requires $185 million in funding for the initial infrastructure start-up costs, including four years operating costs. This financial support will ensure that patients can continue to be bulk-billed. Assuming that the trial is successful and becomes normalised, the financial support reduces to $15 million per annum operating assistance to support all 10 centres from there on.
St John Ambulance chief executive Michelle Fyfe and health services director Phil Holman recently provided my colleagues Senator Dean Smith and Senator Michaelia Cash and me with a tour of the urgent care centre in Joondalup. The centre offers a high-quality, safe and timely alternative care pathway for unscheduled care and, if necessary, X-rays, pathology and follow-up treatments such as plaster casting, urgent dental work and stitches onsite. This will provide a pathway for people requiring care for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions.
Last year, St John urgent care centres attended to approximately 57,800 patients, a third of whom would have otherwise attended an emergency department. Infections and injuries dominate as the main reasons for attendance, and the most common conditions are skin and soft-tissue injuries and musculoskeletal complaints. Urgent care centres have the ability to ease increasing pressure on existing emergency departments by transitioning patients with the lowest urgency cases, ATS 4 and ATS 5, to urgent care centres, providing substantial cost efficiencies for government and ensuring a patient-focused approach. With government support, the number of St John urgent care centres could increase from three to 10, and it would be cost-effective to government by $200 per patient in the first four years.
Last week was a good week in this place in that we welcomed home Hakeem al-Araibi, a constituent of mine who had spent nearly 80 days in jail in Thailand when he should have been enjoying his honeymoon. I rise in this place to say how wonderful it is to have him back home in Melbourne with his wife, an amazing young woman, and to note that he has resumed training for Pascoe Vale Football Club and hopefully will be playing on Friday. My loyalties on Friday will most certainly be with Pascoe Vale and, in particular, a defender wearing No. 5.
In celebrating his return to Australia and to Melbourne and to the sport he loves and plays so well, I also want to touch in this place on three matters which constitute some unfinished business in respect of Hakeem and for all of us in this place who get to make decisions about the wellbeing of Australians and people in respect of whom we have committed to protect their circumstances.
The first point is to acknowledge statements by the foreign minister in respect of Hakeem al-Araibi's progress towards Australian citizenship. I welcome her comments that this will be expedited, but I note that my representations on his behalf and on behalf of his wife have not yet been positively responded to by Minister Coleman. I think it would be a wonderful end to this difficult journey which has brought this parliament and Australians together to see Hakeem and his wife fully welcomed into the Australian community, and for this to happen very soon.
Secondly, we need to reflect in this place on the circumstances that led to Hakeem al-Araibi's detention. I found the evidence from both the AFP and Border Force in Senate estimates this week both shocking and disturbing. We need to look deeper into exactly what happened that led to Hakeem's detention, but, more fundamentally, we need to be able to assure the Australian community that this can never happen again. There clearly are systemic faults here. They are in the process of being identified, but we need to go beyond identifying them to rectifying them. This simply cannot happen again.
Lastly, we need to harness the spirit that saw Australians come together. I note the words of Craig Foster:
Our nation has a big heart, we saw just how big in the past few months, and we need to carry this compassion forward.
Debates about refugees in this place are difficult because the challenge is difficult. The way we talk about this needs to recognise we are fundamentally talking about not rights in the abstract but human beings and, fundamentally, their lives. We should be able to have a policy debate in this place that recognises that. Where we have differences, we should be able to argue them out without rancour and without divisiveness. That is a lesson we must take on board from this experience.
The coalition's stronger economy means we're able to deliver quality health care to the families of Bonner. That means more access to vital health services locally and less money and time spent travelling. This is great news for my constituents' weekly family budget.
Another great healthcare investment by the coalition government is the $375 million package to deliver 50 new MRI licences across Australia. Since this announcement last year I've been working with locals to secure an MRI bulk-billing licence in Bonner for local families. I've met with the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, on a number of occasions to put our case forward, and I'm pleased to announce we have secured a Medicare-eligible MRI licence for Qscan Carindale. This is huge news for my electorate. One fully operational Medicare-eligible MRI licence provides 5,500 services for over 4,000 patients. This means that Bonner residents in need of a vital MRI will spend less money and less time travelling to get there. This means MRI services will be delivered for patients with a range of conditions, including cancers, neurological conditions, coronary conditions and stroke. And the best part is: no out-of-pocket costs.
This is just one example of the coalition's record investment into health. With a strong economy we've been able to invest more than $10 billion in adding over 1,900 new life-changing medicines onto the PBS, $26 million in tackling childhood heart disease and $26 million in mental health programs—and Medicare spending is guaranteed, and increasing, every year.
Every year there are nearly eight million presentations to public hospital emergency departments across Australia. That works out at an average of 21,000 presentations each day, all with tales of horror and heartache. Sadly, I've had to take my wife and my children—both of my sons—to the emergency departments at the QEII and the Mater over the years. They've contributed to that tally on a couple of occasions, and me too—I've been along on one occasion as well. I'll give a shout-out to the new series of Veep that I'm looking forward to watching, which actually caused one of my trips to the emergency department!
The emergency departments do serious work, and the credit goes to the local hospitals and professional staff who patch us up and send us on our way, often while being asked to do more with less. As our population grows, more people need to access our public hospitals. But, in Queensland alone, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has cut $160 million from our local hospitals, despite promising on the eve of the 2013 election not to do so. At community barbecues across Morton, whilst on the phones and when doorknocking local residents, people are telling me that the Morrison government is defined by its chaos in Canberra—chaos in leadership, chaos across the parliament and chaos on key issues like the misconduct revealed in the banking royal commission. But I think it's important that we also define the Morrison government by its cuts—cuts to education, cuts to penalty rates, cuts to wages on their watch and obviously most importantly cuts to critical frontline health services and hospitals.
The Morrison government still has its $160 million cut from Queensland public hospitals on its books. It's actually in the current budget. What does this look like? That's the equivalent of 240,000 emergency department visits or 44,000 cataract extractions or 26,500 births. Of this $160 million slashed from Queensland hospitals, it results in a cut from our local hospitals of over $16 million. That's $16 million slashed from QEII Jubilee Hospital and the Princess Alexandra Hospital. And for the other local major hospitals that are often used by Morton residents, this latest cut means the Mater Hospital will have its funding cut by more than $4 million. The Queensland Children's Hospital at South Brisbane, the major specialist children's hospital for Queensland, will have their federal funding cut by more than $6 million, passing the buck to the Queensland government to ensure that our sick kids get the specialist care they need. Every dollar cut from our hospitals is a dollar cut from our most vulnerable Queenslanders.
Only Labor will ensure that our healthcare system has the funding that it needs. Labor will fix this by not giving tax cuts and handouts to the top end of town: big business, big banks and multinationals. Australians have a choice at this election: a choice between chaos and Labor. (Time expired)
Little Athletics clubs in regional areas are a great stepping stone for our young athletes. Earlier this month I had the pleasure of presenting a grant to the Woolgoolga Little Athletics club to help them maintain and upgrade their facilities. They are a great club. In fact nine of their members qualified for the New South Wales state track and field championships, to be held in Sydney in mid-March. I'd like to congratulate the following competitors: William Bennett, Joseph Birkett, Skye Birkett, Lincoln Chambers, George Cummings, Kweller Happ, Maya Mitchell, Taharna Reid and Ethan Striegher. I'd also like to thank the executive of Grahame Burgess, Craig Hundle, Jasmine Bennett, Jamie Mahoney and Jada Johnson for the wonderful job they do with the club.
I'd like to acknowledge some candidates who are running for the Nationals in the upcoming state election, and I'd like to start by acknowledging the Nationals candidate for the Lismore electorate, Austin Curtin, who is already delivering for the community. He lobbied for $8.2 million to start flood-proofing the Lismore CBD. He successfully lobbied the government for this money after he initiated a community petition for work following the flooding of the CBD in March 2017. He has also pushed hard for 280 nurses and midwives in the Northern New South Wales Local Health District to be allocated if he is successful. He has also announced on the weekend a doubling of Lismore Active Kids vouchers, which is obviously helping families with cost-of-living pressures. I wish Austin all the very best.
I'd like to acknowledge the Nationals candidate for Coffs Harbour in the upcoming election. Gurmesh Singh has already delivered for the community. He lobbied very hard to the state government and the RMS on the benefits of tunnels with the Coffs Harbour bypass. He is very well-known in the community. He's a fourth-generation Australian and a third-generation Coffs Harbour resident. He also successfully lobbied the government to increase nursing staff, or medical staff, with 300 to be allocated to the Mid North Coast Local Health District. He has also secured an election commitment of $8 million for a multipurpose centre at Woolgoolga and also a $10 million grant for a new boat ramp at Coffs Harbour. I wish him all the best. He will be a great MP for the Coffs Harbour region.
I'd like to acknowledge Ben Franklin, who is running for the Ballina seat for the Nationals in the upcoming state election. He has already represented the community very well as an MLC in the upper house of the New South Wales parliament. He has done things like kept the old Byron Bay hospital in community hands. He has delivered on traffic congestion by getting a bypass for the Byron Bay CBD. He has got assets like the Mullumbimby Hospital sold back to the community. He has secured funding for the Ballina indoor sports stadium, the Lennox Community Centre and much more. I wish him all the very best.
Across Australia, more than 127,000 older people have been waiting for more than a year to access the care that they've been promised—to access the care for which they've received approval. When the last Home Care Packages Program data report was released, covering July to September last year, there were 735 Canberrans who were waiting to access their approved home care package. These are services that help them stay in their homes—services that allow them to continue to live with dignity to retain their independence.
These delays are causing uncertainty and stress for many of these older Canberrans. An older Canberran has been trying to get assistance for standard gardening and home maintenance services. And she has asked not to be named, so I will call her Margaret. Margaret's My Aged Care package was approved in July last year. Since then, every time she tries to get some help, she's been told that all service providers are at capacity, that they're full, and she has to wait until there is an opening. Service providers have also told Margaret to call in the new financial year. And she did that—this was last year—and she got nothing. They also told her again to call, after Christmas, six months later, and she still got nothing. Margaret is still waiting—she doesn't know for how long—and she doesn't know if she'll ever receive the services for which she is entitled and for which she has approval.
Another story, this time from Janne. Janne and her husband are both My Aged Care participants and have been using DUO, a service provider here in Canberra, for over five years for gardening and home maintenance services. At the end of the last year, Janne was told that DUO was no longer able to provide yard-tidying services, as their books were full. This was despite Janne being an existing client for more than five years. Janne is not a new client. She's been using this service for five years. She's been registered with Duo for five years. So how can they suddenly say that their books are full? Shouldn't Janne already be on those books? Janne has not been able to find another provider to take on those gardening and home maintenance services. Again, Janne has been told that all other service providers are fully booked. It's appalling that it has come to this—that this has come to be a standard practice across the ACT.
This is outrageous, and I call on the government to actually look after these people. There are more than a dozen reviews and hundreds of recommendations on aged-care issues that have been ignored by this government. It's just not good enough. Older Australians deserve more. They deserve to be treated with respect, love, care and dignity. (Time expired)
Australia Day is a wonderful opportunity to recognise some of our outstanding citizens and community groups. Today I'd like to recognise the Australia Day award winners from the Cabonne shire in the Calare electorate.
In Borenore and Nashdale, Beau Westcott was named Young Citizen of the Year. Sian Jacobs was named Citizen of the Year. Sian is a member of the RFS and the CWA. Australian National Field Days was named Community Group of the Year.
In Canowindra, William Wright was named Young Citizen of the Year. He'd received the Victor Chang award for outstanding achievement in science. Leanne Stevenson was named Citizen of the Year. Leanne works with the local Rugby League club and is a life member of the local Tigers. Well done, Leanne! The Canowindra Creative Centre received the Community Group of the Year award.
In Cargo, Citizen of the Year went to Rodney Wilson, who volunteers with the local SES and RFS. The Community Group of the Year went to the Cargo Village Markets.
In Cudal, Young Citizen of the Year was awarded to Marlee Nixon. The 2019 Citizen of the Year was awarded to David Farrell. David devotes his time to the Cudal Show and the Men's Shed, amongst many other worthy causes. Community Group of the Year went to the Cabonne Food Wine & Cultural Centre.
In Cumnock, Carol Kerr was named Citizen of the Year for her involvement with the Cumnock & District Progress Association. Cumnock Red Cross was named Community Group of the Year. Environmental Champion of the Year went to the Cumnock P&C, which has been collecting cans and bottles for the Return and Earn program.
In Eugowra, Katie Townsend was named Young Citizen of the Year. Katie was recognised for her community spirit. Catherine Eppelstun was named Citizen of the Year. Cathy is Principal of St Joseph's Catholic school. Community Group of the Year went to the Eugowra Show Society, which continues to put on a fantastic event each and every year.
In Manildra, Toby Gibson was named Manildra's Young Citizen of the year. Toby is an active member of the Manildra Rugby League club and the Manildra swimming club. The swimming club was named Community Group of the Year.
In Molong, Matthew Beuzeville was named Young Citizen of the Year for Molong. He was the captain of Molong Central School in 2018. Citizen of the Year was awarded to Dr Robin Williams for his outstanding work with the HealthOne facility and the MPS. The St John Ambulance Cadets Molong Division was named Community Group of the Year.
In Mullion Creek, Banika Smee was named Citizen of the Year. She is secretary of the Mullion Creek & District Progress Association and trust. The March RFS Brigade was named Community Group of the Year.
In Yeoval, Young Citizen of the Year was awarded to Sydney Tremain. He was school captain at Yeoval Central School in 2018. Philip Hunter was named Citizen of the Year. Phil is president of the Yeoval Show Society. Yeoval Swimming Club took out the Community Group of the Year award.
Congratulations and well done to all of the Australia Day nominees and award winners in the Calare electorate. Our country communities simply could not operate without such wonderful community members and community groups. They are truly the glue that holds our country communities together. I congratulate them all in this House today.
I've spoken in this place many times before on the immeasurable commitments and sacrifices that our Australian Defence Force members make to serve our nation. I'm proud to have spoken on this topic many times before in this term of parliament. Today I again place on record my unwavering support and gratitude to the brave men and women who currently serve our nation, and also to our veterans for their service and contribution to the Australian way of life.
I come from a military family myself, with my father serving in the Navy during the Second World War as a signalman on board the HMAS Ararat. Enlisting at the age of only 20, he served in the Second Australian Imperial Force until Allied victory in the Pacific. I know only too well the stress that military service can place on veterans and their families, which is why I'm always privileged to be able to make time to meet with local RSL sub-branches, to meet with their members and veterans on the issues that are important to them. We must ensure as parliamentarians that we are doing everything we can to support our veterans.
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of attending a meeting of the Sherwood-Indooroopilly RSL Sub-branch with president Glenn Mostyn and their members. They told me of their serious concerns regarding the draft report by the Productivity Commission into the Veterans' Affairs legislative framework and supporting architecture for compensation and rehab for veterans. In particular, the Productivity Commission has suggested that the Department of Veterans' Affairs be dismantled and that a new single ministry for Defence personnel and veterans should be established.
Mr Mostyn, the RSL sub-branches and indeed other veterans in my local community have spoken to me and have since told me that this is a short-sighted plan which will only create more problems. We know DVA is not perfect—it needs reform—but it is critical to ensure that our veterans receive the care and support they deserve. The suggestion by the Productivity Commission of a single ministry overseeing both Defence personnel and veterans could result in a serious conflict of interest created by moving policy into the Department of Defence, essentially making them a self-insurer with no independent policy decisions.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs was established almost a century ago as a part of Australia's commitment to its World War I veterans. The DVA operates for all veterans, and questions remain as to whether a new statutory authority would be available for veterans and their loved ones without a claim. It's of vital importance that we work side by side with our veterans to improve the DVA rather than simply dismantling it. Today I'm calling on the government to hear this message and to make it very clear that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will remain, but improved and enhanced. There are over 2½ thousand veterans in my community and thousands more across the country. I know that the commitment and sacrifice that they make must be recognised and honoured. Today I do that again in this parliament.
Today I'd like to speak about the coal industry and how last year $66 billion was added to our economy by coal operations mainly in Queensland and the Bowen Basin, and some, of course, in the Hunter Valley. I have 16 coalmines in my electorate. I have four coal-fired power stations: NRG in Gladstone, Stanwell outside Rockhampton, and Callide B and Callide C at Biloela on the Callide mine site.
Labor are pushing the 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target. This is purely because they want to enhance the Greens policy. I don't know whether it's Labor policy, but we had a situation in Gladstone, my home town, yesterday where the Labor candidate for Flynn came out and said he supports the coal industry full on. This is contrary to what his leader, Bill Shorten, and the Labor Party are saying and what the Greens party are saying. On his latest visit to Gladstone, Bill Shorten moved himself away from having coal in the background when they were doing some photo shoots for the TV cameras. That shows Bill's nonsupport for the industry. This is going to affect thousands of jobs in the Bowen Basin. It will also have an effect on the Gladstone port operations at the RG Tanna coal-loading wharf and the Wiggins Island wharf, on Aurizon, the main transporter of coal from the coalfields into the ports, on the mine workers themselves and on the small industries that support the coal industry. Small industries in Flynn survive because of the big industries and vice versa. So it is an issue that is very near to my heart.
In Queensland, there are eight coal-fired power stations. They are semi-modern. The one at Kogan Creek is probably the newest and most modern. Those coal-fired power stations have a life expectancy that could extend another 20 years if we invest heavily in them. Bill Shorten and Labor have said that they are not going to invest any more in coal-fired power stations. So where does that leave us? Are they going to invest heavily in renewables? I've got nothing against renewables apart from the cost it causes for users. I quote the fact that a power bill is made up— (Time expired)
I just remind all members to refer to others by their titles, not their names. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
What a momentous 70 years it's been, particularly with the Australia-Israel relationship. As the Leader of the Opposition noted yesterday, it was the first foreign policy decision of Australia in the post World War II world where Australia struck out independently from Britain in foreign policy. Of course, the British abstained on the partition of Palestine and Australia strongly supported it. In fact, Dr Evatt and the then foreign spokesman of the Labor Party led the charge internationally. We in Australia supported, as we do now—both political parties—a two-state solution to the Middle East.
Dr Evatt was very far-sighted back then and his policy was endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech in the House the other day. There were some correct points made by the Prime Minister, too, on the obsession there seems to be with this situation at the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council. It is incredible that the UN has resolution after resolution—tens of resolutions—dealing with issues in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but the 300,000 people in concentration camps in North Korea, the million people in prison camps in Xinjiang and East Turkestan, the Muslim people of Darfur in Sudan and the many much worse situations around the world get little mention.
It is interesting, too, that the very day the Leader of the Opposition moves that supportive resolution recognising Australia's longstanding relationship with Israel is the very day that the British Labour Party splits over this issue. Some of the people in the British Labour Party—including my friend Luciana Berger—as correctly characterised in The Times of London today, were driven out of the Labour Party by anti-Semitism because, unfortunately, the leadership of the British Labour Party can't distinguish between legitimate criticisms of a state and obsessive criticisms of a people in a state. That led the British Jewish community and great Labour MPs like Luciana Berger to say that their party has been overtaken by bigotry. What a terrible thing for a social democratic party to have happen to it. It's incredible, when you think of the British Jewish community, who have not been the most assertive political group in the United Kingdom, with 250,000 of them amongst some 80 million Britons, that they have to stage demonstrations outside Westminster that say, 'Enough is enough.'
Recently, in Warsaw, countries from all around the world gathered to evaluate what was happening in the Middle East. If you looked at it from an Israeli point of view, the Arab nations, Asia and Africa all seemed to be creating a positive experience and worked together. Israel's relations with Asia and Africa seemed to be particularly productive. They all identified—particularly, very interestingly, Israel and most of the Sunni Arab states—that the threat to order in the Middle East is terrorism in Lebanon with Hezbollah, in Syria with Iran's support of the Assad regime and in Yemen, where it is providing long-range missiles to the Houthis. That is the existential threat not just to Israel but to peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, when Iran resumes its nuclear weapons program, I'm afraid that Saudi Arabia and various other countries are going to go nuclear as well.
If one's looking at the situation of Israel 70 years after its declaration, it's an amazing story. From 600,000 people at the time of independence, it has a population exceeding eight million now. In the long history of the Jewish people, the destruction of six million Jews in Europe during the Shoah, the Nazi mass extermination, has been responded to in historical terms by there being amongst the Israeli population—20 per cent of whom are Arab-Israelis, who have equal rights—at least six million Jews. So there's a really symbolic victory in the re-establishment of the Jewish commonwealth in that part of the world.
In demography, it's very interesting to see too that its future seems guaranteed by its own population, something I think we need to focus on in Australia. It's a very unfashionable point of view, but I think the truth is that demography is destiny. Israelis seem so satisfied or happy with their lives that people, even secular people, have on average 3.3 children per family. That's very different to other Western societies. Australia is relatively better than other comparative societies. We have 1.9. It shows a confidence in your own society. Amongst the Arab-Israeli population, interestingly enough, as their economic prosperity has advanced, their population growth has gone down to 3.6 from about six or seven. As populations economically prosper, the traditional pattern is for their reproduction to decrease. It's not the case in that country. People in what's called the happiness index seem to be doing very well.
The productivity of that society is seen in the huge contribution that it makes in technology, in its economy and in the number of doctors it has, say, compared to people in surrounding societies. It's interesting that its GDP per head is now in excess of US$45,000 per capita. There are still great inequalities there that need to be addressed, but compare that to Egypt, which has US$3,000 per capita, or Jordan, with US$9,000. It is interesting that the Israeli economy, from an Australian trade point of view, is bigger than the combined economies of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria—eight million people, with their incredible high-tech production and a productive society. It shows you the benefit of transparent, open democratic societies compared to authoritarian countries where there isn't that type of transparency.
There will be an election in Israel on 9 April. Elections are always a good, cleansing democratic experiment for the soul and for the population. If I were an Israeli voter—and I am not—I would think that perhaps the current Israeli government has had its time. It is always good to have change; we can feel that in our bones in Australia as well. I might not be voting for Mr Netanyahu, although, from a security point of view, I would have to concede that he has done a very good job. From the point of view of the economy, he has done a very good job. From the point of view of ignoring the hatred of his country from societies in Europe, he has turned to Africa and Asia, which seems to have borne great fruit. However, given the fact that the Arab countries are relatively sympathetic to Israel, now seems to be the time to seize the day and grab the Arab peace plan and negotiate with them including to try and solve the Palestinian issue along the formula that Australia has long supported—a two-state solution.
Of course, you have Palestinian intransigence; as the late Abba Eban used to say, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The Americans are offering them a huge aid package if they agree to a state alongside Israel with clear and recognised borders. All of us know, as President Clinton did when he negotiated with Arafat back in 2000, what the formulation is going to be: you can keep most of the Israeli people across the green line by including those settlements in land swaps. Let's hope for that positive and forward-looking society, that scientific and technological nation, that they have a good election and their future is bright alongside the people next to them. (Time expired)
I am pleased to speak on the 70th anniversary of Australia's formal diplomatic relationship with the state of Israel. I appreciate the good relationship between Australia and Israel but there is a big problem, a Palestinian problem. I want to take us back to a few important dates in time, and those dates start from World War I. After the Battle of Gaza and the Battle of Beersheba, British forces, including Australians and Palestinians, fought off the German backed Ottoman Empire. In the 1920s, Palestinians were promised their own homeland where they could live for a thousand years. In 1948 the British government promised Israel a large portion of Palestine as their new homeland. The Palestinians were booted off their homeland and some are still in refugee camps today.
In 1967, in the Six-Day War, Israel claimed extra land, including the Golan Heights, and the occupation of Palestine began. In that move, 7,000 hectares was annexed from East Jerusalem to the Jewish people. In 1990, the West Bank divided into three areas—A, B and C. Area C, which was 60 per cent of the West Bank, was totally controlled by Israel. Areas A and B were partially self-governed but Israel still controlled those areas. That included all travel abroad, which university you went to, where you worked and who could visit Gaza. You needed permits to go anywhere, at any time. The register of births, deaths and marriages was with the Israelis.
Four hundred thousand Israelis now live in territories on the West Bank in 200 settlements, and that figure is growing daily. The 1993 Oslo Accords signed in Washington by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, did little to correct any imbalances. In 2005, Israel completed its so-called disengagement with Gaza. In 2006, Israel bombed the power plant in Gaza. In 2007, Israel imposed blockades on Gaza. In 2009, 2012, 2014 and 2018, Israel conducted military operations in Gaza. In 2017, the Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza reached 50 years. Overall, the situation is getting worse and not better.
How do we fix this problem? Should it be a one-state solution or a two-state solution? Of course, Australia favours the two-state solution. Israel still maintains effective control over all of those living in Palestine, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. From the Palestinian point of view, they want to live as equals, have the Israelis as neighbours and be good neighbours. For a two-state solution, Israel must return land taken in the 1967 war and, of course, let the Palestinians be masters of their own destiny and live peacefully with Israel.
There are 134 foreign countries who support Palestine in its aspirations for a better future, jobs for their youth, water security, an ability to run their own lives and not be ripped out of their beds at two o'clock in the morning and have their homes demolished the next day. Little has been done to challenge Israel's policy. The longer the world allows this reality to continue, the worse it gets. The big risk is the radicalisation of youth, as they see no future if the current situation continues.
This week marks the 70th anniversary of Australia's formal diplomatic relationship with the state of Israel, and I would like to acknowledge our profound friendship with the people of Israel. Israel was born out of necessity, with the background of 3,000 years of Jewish connection to the land and as a result of a vote of the United Nations General Assembly to provide shelter to a persecuted people who needed a homeland not only to protect themselves but to preserve their culture and traditions.
In its short life span, Israel has evolved from a vulnerable, weak and resource-deficient country to a thriving democratic and innovative state. Israel, also known as the start-up nation, is advancing the world with technological inventions, ranging from drip irrigation and water creation technology to autonomous driving and breakthrough medical advancements. The ideas and inventions that stem from the existential need of the state in its early years to defend and sustain itself by its own forces has influenced the world and made Israel a technological incubator for the entire world. Israel has the highest amount of start-ups per capita in the world and is the leader in autonomous driving, cybersecurity, enterprise software, clean energy technology and digital health. With thousands of start-ups, hundreds of investors, dozens of accelerators and many other resources, the Israeli technology ecosystem continues to grow and produce extraordinary success.
In Israel you say, 'I can deliver this,' and then you work out how to do it. The Israeli emphasis is on ideas, speed and rollout. This is a winning formula for Israel. Despite having a population of just 8.5 million people in the space of 70 years, the nation has developed more high-tech start-ups than all of Europe in recent years and trails only the US on that score. Silicon Wadi is an area around Tel Aviv on the country's coastal plain that has a cluster of high-tech industries built around military start-up and venture capital communities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has commented that there are not a lot of benefits to being a small country, but the ability to create a successful ecosystem is definitely one of them.
Israel and Australia share a strong and growing economic relationship. The Australian government opened a landing pad in Tel Aviv, encouraging and supporting innovation from Australian companies. Already 16 Israeli companies have joined the Australian Stock Exchange. Israel is now in the top six among foreign countries with companies on the Australian Stock Exchange. Strong results from these pioneers have even more Israeli companies considering listing as our economic relationship continues to grow and prosper. In 2015 Australians had invested $250 million in Israeli companies and today there are hundreds of Australians investing in Israeli companies and funds.
Trade between Israel and Australia was officially valued at $1.2 billion in 2016. Many of the Israeli companies operating in Australia provide IT services, including cybersecurity, and many companies assist Australia in this area. The real value of this trade relationship has been estimated at $2 billion, as service exports are not included in the data.
Despite geographical distance, Australia and Israel maintain a close economic relationship. We share concerns and interests with regard to cybersecurity, water security and agricultural technologies, to name a few. These are reflected in the economic agreements between Australia and Israel. These include agreements for cooperation with Victoria and New South Wales, as well as a federal R&D agreement. An air services agreement and a technological innovation cooperation agreement were signed during Prime Minister Netanyahu's state visit to Australia in February 2017. A working holiday agreement was finalised in June 2016 and will deepen ties between our nations for the business leaders of tomorrow.
Like Australia, Israel has considerable areas of arid land, making reliable and adequate water supplies a significant concern. Israel has consistently been at the forefront of water management and conservation over the last 70 years. Israel is one-third the size of Tasmania and has many issues in common with Australia, including a large proportion of the land being desert, yet Israel recycles 86 per cent of its water while Australia recycles only seven per cent.
Driven by necessity, Israel has learnt to squeeze more out of a drop of water than any country on earth, as it pioneers new techniques in desalination and water treatment, supported by radical national water policy. Just a few years ago, in the depths of its worst drought in at least 900 years, Israel was running out of water. Now it has more water than it needs. This remarkable turnaround started in 2007 and was accomplished largely by a new wave of desalination plants, supported by national campaigns to conserve and reuse Israel's limited water resources. Israel's desalination technology and water strategies have systematically turned one of the world's driest countries into the unlikeliest of water giants in only 11 years. Israel now sources 55 per cent of its domestic water from desalination at one-third of the cost of 20 years ago.
The quest for water is a very real one. It is a contentious issue for Australia, just as it is in Israel. We have much to learn from Israel in managing and overcoming our own domestic water challenges. During a recent visit to Australia, Professor Noam Weisbrod, the Director of the Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research in Israel, shared vital advice: 'Water planning must be bold, it must be long term and decisions must be made on the basis that drought will become more frequent as the world gets hotter and drier. Climate change must be central to water policy.' He also noted that the Israeli system has a central authority that regulates and supports the water industry at a national level. Politics is largely removed, as this is the only way in which necessary long-term policy can be effectively and efficiently implemented. The drinkable water from desalination plants is also economically viable because the government has committed to buy it for 25 years. With that kind of guarantee, companies invest and the cost of water reduces.
Israel is also an innovator in the field of medical technology, with benefits to health systems around the world. Israel runs a lifesaving cardiac unit for children. That is just one example. It's called Save a Child's Heart. It has treated almost 5,000 children suffering heart disease, with 50 per cent of those children coming from the Arab world. Dire circumstances and the marriage of human capital and resolute determination in the face of adversity have allowed Israel to achieve what many advanced economies could only dream of achieving. As the Israeli Ambassador to Australia, Mark Sofer, points out, the fact that modern-day Israel is at the forefront of the world in innovation, technology and economic development is nothing short of a minor miracle.
Can I congratulate the previous members for their statements on the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Australia and Israel. It is so important, regardless of the political party we represent and our various political views, that we have a bipartisan approach to this vital bilateral relationship, now 70 years old, between Australia and Israel. Importantly, Australia was the first country to vote in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution, joining 32 other nations in successfully voting for the resolution. This ultimately led to the creation of Israel as a nation-state. I want to pay tribute to the Labor Party's Doc Evatt for the work he did at that time on behalf of Australia, saying that it was inevitable and just that Israel become an independent state. We, in Australia, extended our recognition of the state of Israel in January 1949 and we presided over the vote that officially and formally admitted Israel as a UN member. The embassies in Tel Aviv and Canberra both opened in the same year, in 1949.
Our two countries share so much. We share important events in history. We share the common values of democracy, decency and humanity. And today we share a commitment to making the world a better place. The relationship has grown over time. I was particularly pleased to be there when Israel's Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, became the first sitting Israeli Prime Minister to visit Australia in February 2017, and I too want to pay credit to the very warm and genuine welcome that then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull extended to Bibi Netanyahu. There was the return prime ministerial visit and 100-year commemoration of the Battle of Beersheba in October 2017, which the Leader of the Opposition spoke about in the parliament the other day. It was a critical event in Australia's history as well as Israel's.
Tell Aviv was announced in 2015 as the first of five offshore innovation landing pads, and that shows our commitment to learning from the start-up nation, namely Israel. More and more Israeli companies are choosing to list on the ASX. Now 17 are listed, most having listed in the last three years, and more are planned. I want to congratulate Scott Morrison as Prime Minister for his strength, for his principle and for his decision to recognise West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move our embassy there, when practical, in support of and after the final status determination of a two-state solution and also for his decision to establish a trade and defence office in West Jerusalem, which will help deepen the collaboration in trade in defence-industries investment and innovation. This is absolutely critical in developing our bilateral relationship.
Australia's vibrant Jewish community is very strong and very close and it continues to contribute to the Australian community at large. I pay tribute to the member for Wentworth, who's in the Chamber, and the member for Eden-Monaro, both of whom have strong connections, either directly or indirectly, to that community. There are more than 120,000 Jewish people in Australia. There's been an increase of 10,000, or around 20 per cent, over the last 10 years. Half of those are Israeli-born people who live in my home state of Victoria, and they enjoy the peace, the prosperity and the values that our country extends to all who come here.
Margaret Thatcher said:
Israel is small in geography but large in history … But perhaps even more impressive than the achievements is the spirit of your people: pioneering, brave, resourceful, determined; an example of how indomitable will can overcome almost any problem.
That is the view of one of the world's greatest stateswomen about Israel, and it's a view that has been shared by Winston Churchill and, more recently, by others. Shimon Peres told John Howard that Australia is a beloved country in Israel, and so it is true that Australians admire Israel and Israel admires Australians.
I think we've been very blessed in this country to have had successive prime ministers committed to the bilateral relationship. On the Labor side, Julia Gillard stands out in the way she stood by Israel during some attacks on the country. John Howard was a trailblazer and a longstanding friend of the Jewish community, and so too Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and now Scott Morrison. I think it's because the Australia-Israel relationship is one that goes to the very heart of our being. It's about the values that we believe in; it's about the people who we are; it's about our spirit; and it's about our countries. May the relationship go from strength to strength for more than another 70 years. May it grow strong with the support of both sides of this House.
This motion really should be about celebrating a wonderful history of bipartisanship in this country, and I acknowledge the efforts of the member for Kooyong in forging that bipartisanship aspect and relationship across the chambers in the years that he's been in this House. But, every now and again, we do see some attempts to politicise these things and it's unfortunate that we've just seen that recently, with the Prime Minister coming out in the media and attacking the Leader of the Opposition as not being a true friend of Israel. I would like to completely direct to bipartisan comments in this motion, but I think I do have to reflect at this time on the historical background to this 70th anniversary. It's very appropriate that I do so.
The birth of Israel was effectively something that Labor was a midwife to, and it's an extremely proud part of our tradition. Doc Evatt was the chairman of the ad hoc committee. He actively, vigorously and successfully steered through that committee the support for the partition plan to create the original two-state concept, which we should have had back in 1947 had Israel's neighbours accepted it at that time. Doc Evatt put an enormous amount of work into that, and was widely acknowledged as having been someone who made 'a very vital contribution to the final result'. In fact, Michael Comay, Israel's rep to the UN at the time, praised Evatt for his masterly handling of the ad hoc committee.
It didn't end there, because it had to then get steered through the General Assembly. Of course, Doc Evatt ended up becoming the initial president of the General Assembly. He again masterfully put enormous effort into ensuring that that vote passed in the General Assembly. Australia was one of the very first countries to vote in favour of it, and is well remembered in Israel for that purpose. These are the existential issues about the creation of the state of Israel; this is where it really counts. It's important to note that in later years the then President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann, hailed Evatt for having played 'a momentous role in all the processes which culminated in the birth of Israel'. In 1965 The Australian Jewish News eulogised him as 'the man who piloted the establishment of Israel through the UN in 1948'.
At both of those steps—the navigating of the partition plan through the ad hoc committee and the General Assembly process, and later in relation to the recognition of Israel and its admission to the UN—the coalition opposition of the day, every single step of the way, bitterly opposed every step Labor made in that direction. The Liberal and Country parties that were in coalition as the federal opposition at that time were incredibly anti-Israel. They were just slavishly following the British policy at the time, and they severely criticised our Chifley-Evatt government's support for that process. They in fact made some outrageous comments, which you can check the Hansard for. One of them was an outright anti-Semitic statement: that the UN decision, they claimed, resulted from political pressure by American Jews and was thus illegitimate. Such a statement today would be roundly condemned, but that's the statement they made at the time.
The opposition also criticised the raising of funds by the Jewish community here, implying that it had been done under duress and could be used for anti-British purposes in Palestine. It was one of the reasons why the Jewish youth paper Banativ at the time praised Australia, which they said:
… unlike Britain … is not lending her support to any plan of settlement which gives territorial concessions in Israel to foreign invaders …
Banativ also criticised members of the opposition who had attacked Dr Evatt for failing to follow slavishly the anti-Israel line adopted by Britain. These were the realities of the time.
The community in Australia was very much supportive of the recognition of Israel in its submission to the UN, particularly in those recognition arguments and debates that were going on, which as I said the opposition at the time, the coalition, opposed. There were leaflets supported by the trade union leaders, academics and clergymen published by the historian Brian Fitzpatrick in July 1948 calling on the government to recognise Israel. Of course, on 29 January 1949 the Chifley government announced that the Australian government had decided to give full recognition to the Jewish state of Israel and regarded the nation of Israel as, 'a force of special value in the world community.' That's the voice of Chifley.
One of the reasons Chifley and Evatt were so keen to do this was that it was in very recent memory the support that the Jewish community of Israel had given to our soldiers, including both of my grandfathers at the time, which I'm extremely grateful for, considering the suffering they later went through in the fight against the Japanese. That community provided extensive welfare arrangements and looked after our troops with great care. Chifley and Evatt were also aware that the leadership of the Palestinians, who'd let their people down severely at the time, collaborated closely with the Nazis. Haj Amin al-Husseini, one of their leaders, was in Germany helping to orchestrate the Holocaust at the time and recruiting for the SS. They were well aware of that, and it was one of the reasons why their attitude was shaped in the way it was.
Again, Britain opposed the de jure recognition of Israel, and the federal opposition at the time supported Britain in vehemently criticising the Chifley government. As I said, the Labor government also supported Israel's admission to the United Nations, despite, again, opposition by Britain and the coalition here. That took place on 11 May 1949—again, through the fantastic and vigorous efforts of Doc Evatt, who became president of the General Assembly on 21 September 1948. When the foreign minister of Israel, Moshe Sharett, got up to make his acceptance speech of that recognition, he thanked Doc Evatt and described him as 'one of the foremost personalities responsible for the birth of Israel' and presented him with a certificate of the Jewish National Fund in recognition of his services to Israel. Immediately after that, they exchanged diplomatic missions. That was a proud tradition, a proud process, that had begun in 1947 and followed right through to the final recognition and admission of Israel to the UN.
Being one of the first countries to do that, the Jewish community here was quite concerned about the opposition positions on this issue. The Banativ youth magazine, which I referred to earlier, was deeply concerned in the 1949 elections about what the policy would become if the coalition were to win. They called on their readership to vote for the Labor government, which, 'consistently supported the cause of Israel, Jewry, and the UN.' They warned:
… a Liberal Government would result in the growing tide of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist feeling being heard more loudly in parliament, but this time from the government benches.
Those, I would describe as bad old days. Look, we should freely admit to periods of Labor policy honestly, such as our support for the White Australia policy over time. It's important to recognise bad parts of our history. That was a bad time. I think members of the coalition will recognise that their position in those days was wrong. It's good to see that from the mid-fifties onward there was a deep and abiding bipartisanship, and we all know the stories, and of course Bob Hawke's efforts and the like, in getting Soviet Jewry out and supporting Israel.
Where we are today of course is moving the peace process forward. What we should be doing is looking for ways to make that two-state solution happen to deliver the final piece of this story. That's why we have issues with this decision about the embassy move. It was a clumsy attempt to intervene in the region, in the issue and in the process for the purposes of a by-election. It was not done in consultation with the Quartet, the stakeholders or the parties involved.
With a major diplomatic step like that, you always use it in the process. We could have gone to Israel and said, 'We'd love to do this, but we'd like to see more action on dismantling illegal outposts.' We could have gone to the Palestinians and said, 'We want to do this, but if you, for example, would stop what's going on in the Gaza Strip with Hamas and its brutal treatment of gays and lesbians and women and its outlawing of free trade unionism et cetera, we'll only do this in the context of a recognition of East Jerusalem.' Those are the things we could have worked through, which is what I believe the Trump administration is doing at the present time. But, no, it was this ham-fisted, stumble-bum approach to getting involved in the intricate and difficult politics of the Middle East. So I would say: let's not try and play politics with this. We need to retain a bipartisan approach to this issue and to carefully craft our way through using diplomacy to get to that two-state solution, which we would really like to see, and in a way that helps the Palestinians build the mechanisms of the state and also encourages them down the path of a democratic, secular state that respects human rights—and that is the objective of all of us. (Time expired)
I'm pleased to be making a statement today on the 70th anniversary of Australia's diplomatic relationship with Israel. I refer to the Opposition Leader's speech in the parliament yesterday in which he referred to the personal connections that members of this House and Australians in general share with the people and nation of Israel.
On that note, I want to reflect on my own personal connections to the Jewish people, which date back to the 1960s and specifically 1963, when my family and I moved to Carlton, an inner city suburb in Melbourne, where I grew up. It was a time of mass migration to Australia, and it was a suburb that had very many migrants from southern Europe, in particular. More importantly, a large Jewish refugee community, Holocaust survivors, preceded us there. We lived amongst that community. My mother, in particular, had formed a friendship with a Polish Jewish woman, whose name was Rosa. Mum and Rosa worked together in the local factory. Rosa was one of the many Jewish women whom my mum and our neighbours worked with. Rosa would come to our home, if not every day after work, certainly on many occasions. I would serve as the interpreter. Rosa spoke English and I spoke English but mum didn't, so I would interpret for the two women as they sat down and had coffee together.
I was a young girl at the time and I've never forgotten Rosa's face. The impact on her from her time in Auschwitz was so profound that that's all she ever talked about. She showed us her tattoo on her forearm—it was the first time that I had ever seen this—and she always carried with her photographs of members of her family who had perished. This was the essence of Rosa's grief. For my parents but for my mother in particular, the fact that she had met a Jewish person was quite fascinating. My parents had lived on the island of Lefkada, in the Ionian Sea. They were there as 10-year-olds during the Second World War. My island of Lefkada was the only one of the seven islands in the Ionian Sea that had German soldiers occupying it, and that was because it was a strategic place for them. They had their radio antennas and so forth set up there. My parents always talked about the Germans in the village, and they had heard the stories about what Adolf Hitler was doing to the Jewish people, but of course in those times there was no media and no newspaper; no-one had access to anything. These were by and large things that they remembered being told, and it was incredible that they came to Australia and finally met Holocaust survivors. I guess in many ways it's a reflection of the kind of country that we have built over those years in that they finally did meet people whom they had learnt about and heard about during the Second World War.
That intersecting of the Jewish refugees in Australia was part of the bigger Arthur Calwell migration program. As the member for Calwell, I would like to acknowledge that, despite the difficulties around the White Australia policy, Arthur Calwell did oversee a migration and refugee program that welcomed, among others, Jewish refugees and they were included in that program here in Australia. I want to acknowledge Arthur Calwell. Certainly, the Jewish community acknowledges the support that he gave them. I also want to acknowledge Mary Elizabeth Calwell, his daughter, who has maintained a strong relationship with the Jewish community here in Australia.
Australia and the Labor Party have a historical relationship to Israel. As many members here have said, Doc Evatt, as President of the United Nations, participated in voting for the creation of the Jewish state. Also, the Australian Labor Party, as the Leader of the Opposition affirmed, has always pursued and supported a two-state solution. On this day, the 70th anniversary of the state of Israel, we also need to acknowledge the creation of the Palestinian state. The right of the Palestinian people to have their own state, as agreed to with the two-state solution, needs to be fulfilled. Peace and security in the region, and ultimately for Israel, depends on the actualisation of the two-state solution.
After 70 years of statehood, Israel has grown into a very vibrant country. It is a leader in many areas of technology and it is an innovative and exciting place. But Israel's peace and security still lies with the need to make peace with its Palestinian neighbours through a two-state solution—two peoples, recognising each other's rights to exist in peace within secure borders. The great former Prime Minister of Israel, the late Yitzhak Rabin knew this. He understood profoundly that peace and security for Israel lay in making peace with the Palestinians. That's what drove him to make the decision to move in the direction of partnering with Yasser Arafat to participate in the Oslo process, in the hope that that peace could be achieved.
Sadly, all the hopes and expectations of that process and that time ended abruptly with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and then the death of Yasser Arafat. Since then, things have not gone very well for either people. It is heartening, however, to see that there still is a will for peace among Israelis and Palestinians. I say that having been to the region, most recently with the member for Flynn, and having spoken to many Israelis and Palestinians as well. There is still a hope and a desire for peace. They said to us that making peace is something their politicians can't seem to find a way forward on but they have a strong will to do so. They look to Australia, knowing our history and relationship with Israel. They look to us again to help in this process. I believe that Australia can lend a hand again, just like we did 70 years ago.
I would like to leave the chamber with this thought, something that has been impressed upon me in all of the time that I have pursued this issue in this parliament: pursuing the rights of Palestinian people and defending them doesn't make you anti-Semitic; on the contrary, it is a genuine desire to see how we can assist in helping to achieve peace in that region. But we are told that the time is running out for a viable two-state solution and a genuine peace. There is a lot of anxiety and concern in Israel and Palestine—and it should concern us—that a failure to find a way forward soon will risk Israel's future security and its democracy. So to fail will risk continued tensions and conflict in the region, it will risk the security of the state of Israel and it will risk the stability of the region. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the Labor Party has always supported bipartisanship in pursuit of a two-state solution. We continue to support that and we will do whatever we can to treat this issue with the sensitivity that it requires. The member for Eden-Monaro made a very strong point about the complexity of this issue and the need to understand its many layers, to treat it sensitively and to treat it with understanding. I want to say that the Prime Minister's hurried announcement—a bungled announcement, actually—about moving our embassy to Jerusalem wasn't well thought through. To be honest and frank with you, I was in the region in January, and people there weren't very happy with it either. It wasn't very helpful. The best way we can continue to contribute is to work together in bipartisanship to realise a two-state solution.
I rise to speak on the 70th anniversary of Australia's formal diplomatic relationship with the state of Israel. I'm very honoured to be able to address the parliament in a very important discussion in this parliament, which is also a discussion which has been held with speakers from both sides of the parliament. I follow on from my friend the member for Calwell and her deep commitment to peace in that region, which is well known and recognised by many, not only in this country but right across that region as well. I'm following on also from the member for Eden-Monaro and the Treasurer of Australia and from the statements in the House of Representatives from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Throughout the world, Australia is lucky to have many great nations as close friends and allies, but perhaps, of all of our wonderful partnerships, it is Israel that we share the most in common with. Today we recognise the 70th anniversary of the formal beginning of Australia's friendship with Israel. It was not long after David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, publicly read the declaration of independence of Israel on 14 May 1948 that Australia and Israel formalised our partnership together. When officially announcing in 1949 that Australia would recognise Israel as a state, Prime Minister Ben Chifley said Israel would be 'a force of special value in the world'. Since that time, it has proved to be so. In the 70 years since then, the friendship and mateship between our two countries have only grown closer.
Our support for Israel has been long and unwavering. It was only two years earlier, prior to our formal partnership, that Australia was the first country to vote yes to the 1947 United Nations partition plan that called for the establishment of a Jewish state. Of course, it was Australia's Minister for External Affairs from 1941 to 1949, the great Doc Evatt, who presided over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, who also chaired the committee that recommended to the United Nations that Israel be welcomed into the international community of nations.
A few short months later, on 18 May 1949, Israel's UN representative, Abba Eban, wrote to Evatt thanking him for Australia's steadfast support of Israel:
We are deeply indebted to the Australian Delegation for its consistent and effective support of our cause in the Assembly and its organs through all the stages of the consideration of our problem by the United Nations.
We are grateful to you for the decisive part you played in the proceedings.
It was under your chairmanship and thanks in so large measure to your determined lead that Israel was admitted to the United Nations when barely a year old.
The manner in which you steered to a vote the second historic Resolution, representing as it does the culmination of the process initiated by the first, the warmth and eloquence with which you welcomed Israel into the family of nations, have earned for you the undying gratitude of our people.
This shows the depth of our two great countries' bonds with each other from the very start. Evatt would later write in his memoirs:
I regard the establishment of Israel as a great victory of the United Nations.
There is no doubt now that Israel is a progressive and forward-thinking state, and our two countries share not only many of the same values but also a close bond.
We've always had warm relations, with strong economic ties due to the close people-to-people links and our commercial relationship for many decades. The trade between our two nations, as we've heard today from the member for Wentworth, is about $1.2 billion. We continue to explore partnerships to strengthen our economic ties to this day. We cooperate internationally with Israel in many fields, including international development assistance. Importantly, this includes Australia's international development assistance in Gaza and the West Bank, which supports human development, institution building and economic growth, which is so important for peace in that region.
I also rise today to place on record my strong support of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that we may see peace for all people of Israel and the region. I last had the privilege of visiting the region and Israel in 2017 as part of a delegation alongside new members of this place. I hope to visit again soon. It was an honour to visit and be guided by experts through a series of in-depth meetings alongside parliamentary colleagues, officials, academics, union and community leaders, and other Israeli representatives. The trip also coincided with the 100th anniversary since British politician Arthur Balfour, later Lord Balfour, presented a declaration of the British government stating the case for the Jewish homeland.
That year was also the 90th anniversary of the Zionist Federation of Australia, and today I'd like to acknowledge the following: the current ZFA president, Jeremy Leibler; immediate past president, Dr Danny Lamm; the treasurer, Mr Ben Simon; the secretary, Ms Rebecca Lacey Ehrlich; and my good friend and the president of the State Zionist Council of Queensland, Tony Leverton. They are all hardworking and dedicated members of the federation. Whilst today we celebrate the 70th anniversary of our friendship with Israel, we also look to the future of our two great nations for what will no doubt be another 70 years of working closely side-by-side and peace in the region.
I rise today, as my colleagues before me on both sides of the House have, to speak on this motion to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Israeli-Australian diplomatic relationship. I do so as a proud member of the Australian Jewish community and with the full gravity of the significance of being one of the limited number of Jewish-identifying members of this parliament. This is a significant milestone worth celebrating, as are a number of longstanding ties that we hold within the global community as a nation. Australia has an important economic bond with the State of Israel, and it's my sincere hope that our relationship will continue to prosper over the years to come. But I do think it's very important to remember the history of our relationship and how the State of Israel arose.
As members of this place would be aware, our relationship with Israel dates back to 1947, an important period in history for not only both of our young nations but for the entire world. The relationship was fostered under our 16th Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, and his Minister for External Affairs, HV Evatt, who ultimately officially recognised Israel in 1949. Both of our nations were navigating the challenging waters in the immediate post-World War II era, and in trying times such as this the significance of establishing diplomatic relations with another nation cannot be understated.
The history has been spoken about a little. HV Evatt, a Labor icon, was the Minister for External Affairs and chairman of the committee that gave rise to the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel. It's very important to understand the pressures that Evatt was put under by the British government and by conservative political forces in Australia not to agree to this arrangement. Through strength of character and through the support of the Chifley government, he was able to force through the resolution for the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel. It's very important to note that this was under such considerable pressure. It may not have happened so quickly if it weren't for HV Evatt. It was a very important moment in our history where government was able to stand up to the British government and forge our way ahead. It was another one of the remarkable feats of HV Evatt.
It's also important to understand the trauma that the world was recovering from at that time. I have recently been to Germany to visit my daughter and my new grandchild. I visited the museum of terror in Berlin, which describes, documents and informs about the holocaust and the terrible, terrible things that happened at that time, and you cannot fail to understand what a symbol the state of Israel was and is for the Jewish people. As one of the few Jewish people in Australia who has never been to Israel, I still see it as a place of sanctuary which the Jewish people found after the terrible trauma of the Second World War. One needs to understand that history when understanding how important it was for Australia to recognise Israel.
My own electorate of Macarthur's links to Palestine and to Israel go back even further. Every year, we have a commemoration of the Battle of Beersheba, the last great cavalry charge of war time, where the Australian Light Horse charged the Turkish and German forces at Beersheba and overcame them, which led to the rapid advancement of the Allied forces in the First World War. On 31 October every year, at Menangle Park, we have a celebration of the 4th Australian Light Horse, who trained and camped at Menangle prior to embarking for the Middle East where they undertook that great feat. My father-in-law was one of the last of the Light Horsemen who were dismounted in the Second World War to fight in New Guinea. So our electorate of Macarthur has a strong link with the Middle East and with Palestine.
A number of noteworthy Australians have contributed to and fostered the relationship between our two nations. Perhaps the most significant of these was none other than General Sir John Monash, a famous Jewish Australian renowned throughout the country. Our diplomatic relationship, as with all other nations with which we hold bilateral relations, will overcome adversity through time, surpass governments which come and go and, I hope, stand the test of time. In the modern globalised world, our relations with our neighbours bring us together as one and help to break down barriers between language, distance and culture. The role of trade and diplomatic relations cannot be underestimated in negating global conflicts and bringing us closer together. It is of vital importance that we continue to foster economic ties with Israel, which is a rapidly developing country with wonderful new start-up occurring almost every minute. We are as strong as we are united and as weak as we are divided, and we are united with Israel.
Macarthur has a limited number of Jewish Australians residing within its boundaries. However, no doubt Australians from all backgrounds can revel in the success of such a longstanding relationship. Both our nations have experienced a great deal of growth and change throughout our 70-year friendship. As the Leader of the Opposition stated, this anniversary serves as 'a reminder of Australia's capacity to be a constructive, effective international citizen' and it should encourage us all to continue to seek to break down the perceived barriers that have historically divided us.
The geopolitical climate in the Middle East is a difficult one, and division and war still continue to plague the region. However, a democratic society such as Israel should serve as a beacon of hope in this difficult climate and no doubt it offers hope to the people of other nations who still fight a constant battle for freedom from oppression and tyranny. The people of Israel should be supported by diplomatic friends. The right to prosper safely and freely within their borders should be defended at all times. That much is undeniable.
As an ally of the state of Israel, Australia should continue to speak openly and frankly with our close friend. I have no issue in saying I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution. I believe in a two-state solution. I have hope that peace can be found in this region and that the people of Palestine and Israel can, with willingness from both sides, coexist and live harmoniously. As with all borders and barriers, the things that unite us as human beings far surpass the things that divide us. We just have to want to see an end to conflict and be willing to live in harmony. I've said that the people of Israel should be able to live safely and securely within their nation, and I'll say the same thing for the Palestinian people. Certainly there are barriers to overcome, and no-one should deny the complexity of this situation, but that does not make the goal unobtainable. We have to believe that these obstacles can be overcome and tirelessly pursue a two-state solution, if we truly desire to bring stability to the Middle East.
Our actions and decisions as a nation matter, if we are to help our allies bring peace to this difficult region. The impact of world leaders making sweeping statements on the location of diplomatic postings should not be under-estimated, especially if these statements are empty and made with the goal of swinging a few votes in a marginal seat. Our words and our decisions do matter. Australia's role as a global citizen, as with all nations, should not be placed at risk as a result of ill-conceived actions or notions put forth by an individual without appropriate research and understanding. Our relationship with our allies should outlast governments, which come and go. Our world leaders must act as responsible custodians of the offices they hold, to ensure that these relationships continue to thrive in the future.
Israel is facing an election in the near future. The government may change. But we will continue our relationship with the people of Israel, and we believe in a pluralist, liberal democracy being in place in the Middle East and hope that, for the rest of the people of the Middle East, it is achievable as well. I hope that, with increasing prosperity and education, the people of Palestine and the people of Israel can live in coexistence, in harmony.
I will just make a brief contribution on this auspicious occasion, the 70th anniversary of our formal diplomatic relations with the state of Israel. I'll start by acknowledging what I think was a truly heroic achievement by Doc Evatt: to overcome what, at the time, was fairly institutionalised prejudice against the Jewish people, to push through the Australian parliament and the Australian government the recognition of the state of Israel. I think that was an enormous achievement for him.
Looking on the achievements of the state of Israel, they are many and enormous. They are a shining light for democracy and freedom in the Middle East. I was fortunate enough to visit Israel in May 2018. That visit was very kindly sponsored by AIJAC. It was a wonderful visit and gave me a much greater understanding of the situation on the ground. I will never ever claim to be an expert on Middle Eastern politics, but it certainly does help to visit, to meet with some of the players. My visit included a visit to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian people to discuss some of the issues that confront them and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East generally.
But today we're here to talk about the 70th anniversary of our diplomatic relations with Israel. Australia and Israel have been good friends and partners in the international community throughout that period. I would like to echo the Prime Minister's comments in the House yesterday regarding some of the disgraceful motions condemning Israel's human rights record that have been moved in the United Nations by countries that certainly have no claim to a squeaky-clean human rights record themselves.
I will return now to my visit to Israel, to touch on a few issues that I think were important for my understanding—and for others', I'm sure, if other members of parliament have had the opportunity to make that visit. As I mentioned, I made a visit to the West Bank to speak to Palestinians about their position, their dispossession and the challenges that they face. We visited refugee camps, and one of the things that struck me about the refugee camps, which I had not been aware of previously, was that refugee status is passed down through the generations. Some of the people in those refugee camps are, indeed, third generation, since 1948. They are the only refugees in the world who are able to access that generational refugee status. It seemed to me that this had the potential to perpetuate what is a very difficult situation into the future.
We visited Sderot, which is a small town of around 20,000 people on the border with Gaza. I think most people who have followed the news would be aware that Sderot has suffered many, many missile attacks over the years. The people of Sderot have an air raid warning system which allows them around 15 seconds to seek shelter. It was quite remarkable to see children's playgrounds where the caterpillar—a piece of playground equipment for children to climb and play on—was actually also a bomb shelter. This was in schools and other areas. That gave us some sense of the threat that the Israeli people live under, and it was quite an eye-opener. But what was also eye-opening was the character and courage of the Israeli people. There's actually a waiting list for people wanting to move to Sderot. Those people who aren't in the armed forces see moving to a town like Sderot as being in the front line and doing their bit for their country. As I say, it gave us some sense of the character of the people and their willingness to stand and fight for their country and the democracy that they have built in the 70 years since the formation of the nation of Israel.
It was a wonderful trip, and, as I say, I'd recommend that all members of parliament take the opportunity to visit Israel and learn a little bit more about the situation on the ground there. It will give them a somewhat better understanding of what it's like to live in a democracy in the Middle East, surrounded by many people who would like to see your demise. My congratulations to the nation of Israel! I'm very pleased to be able to recognise 70 years of diplomatic relations with their state. Thank you.
It is an honour for me to be able to stand up here and make my contribution in this formal recognition of the 70th anniversary of the diplomatic relationship established between Australia and the state of Israel. In 1853, Louis Monash and his wife, Bertha Manasse, made the very momentous decision to emigrate from Prussia to Melbourne. It was, like every decision to emigrate, one which was momentous and difficult and which profoundly changed their lives. For this young Jewish couple, it was a decision that not only had an impact on them but would ultimately have a great impact upon our nation. In 1865, Bertha gave birth to their son, John, who would grow up to become Australia's greatest military figure and one of the giants of the allied cause in the Great War.
Simcha Baevski arrived in Melbourne as a Russian refugee in 1899, at the age of 21. Along with his brother Elcon, he set up a drapery store in Bendigo. With a dedicated commitment to the adage, 'The customer is always right,' combined with a complete sense of honesty, they built a department store empire. Simcha later changed his name to Sidney Myer, and his efforts during the Depression to keep people working in Melbourne is now a matter of legend. In 1934, after his sudden death, there were 100,000 mourners lining the streets to pay their regards to this great Australian.
From John Monash to Sidney Myer, from Frank Lowy to David Gonski, from Solomon Lew to the Pratts and the Lieblers, the Australian Jewish community have played a huge role in Australia's development, and we are very much the beneficiary of them. Indeed, among their number are an estimated 25,000 Jews who emigrated to Australia within the period of 1945 to 1961, in that process doubling the Jewish community in this country. As a result, we have in Australia the greatest proportion of holocaust survivors, per head of population, of any other country, other than Israel itself. This story of emigration binds our two nations together.
Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, you will know that the Australian Labor Party has been a beneficiary of this contribution as well—from earlier figures, like Senator Sam Cohen, who was the first Jewish Australian to be elected to the Senate, to Barry Cohen, who served as a minister in the Hawke government; the current shadow Attorney-General, who was the Attorney-General during the Gillard government; the member for Macarthur, who just made a contribution; the indomitable member for Melbourne Ports; Phil Dalidakis and Marsha Thomson, who served as ministers in the Victorian government; Jennifer Huppert; and Syd Einfeld. They have made a great contribution to our party. It again serves as an example of how close Australia and Israel are by virtue of this community.
The birth of Israel occurred over a significant period. It perhaps dates from the birth of modern Zionism in 1897, as founded by Theodor Herzl. Emigration to Palestine saw 400,000 Jews living in Palestine prior to the Second World War. In 1939 the British government published a white paper about the establishment of a single Palestinian state after a 10-year period. Included in that white paper was a prohibition on immigration to Palestine of more than 75,000 Jews over a five-year period and that emigration was subject to the acquiescence of the existing Arab population, which was unlikely to ever occur.
The British policy of limiting Jewish emigration to Palestine placed what then occurred in the Holocaust in very sharp focus. As the war ended and the true horror of the Holocaust became apparent, the hundreds of thousands of European Jews who sought to emigrate to Palestine but were denied by virtue of this British policy created a desperate moral question, which was addressed at the 22nd Zionist Congress in Basel in 1946. Really the creation of the modern state of Israel at that point became a cause of global moral justice.
Israel at the outset was founded on principles of collectivism, democracy and social justice. The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, had been the Secretary-General of the Histadrut, what is now the Israeli trade union movement and which predates the state itself. After David Ben-Gurion's retirement he was living in a small bungalow on a kibbutz, at Sde Boker, in the Negev desert. Two pictures adorned his walls: one was of Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator, and the other was of Mahatma Gandhi, who stood for the moral dignity that could be derived from the passive change that he sought to bring about. These images stood for the ideals that Ben-Gurion was about but also what he hoped Israel itself would be about.
In April 1947 the paths of two countries—Israel and Australia—inadvertently, I suppose, crossed by virtue of the role of Doc Evatt in the United Nations. Doc Evatt was a leading figure in the establishment of the United Nations and would become the President of the General Assembly in 1948. Prior to that he was established as the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question. There is absolutely no doubt that he was the critical figure within the UN process that ultimately saw the motion to establish the state of Israel pass through the United Nations. He was a tour de force in this and he did it in the face of opposition by some, ambivalence by others and even trepidation by the United States itself. In the aftermath of the UN vote, when the US gave de facto recognition to Israel, it was by Doc Evatt's hand, as the foreign minister of Australia, that Australia gave full recognition to the new state of Israel. He was later to say in his memoirs, 'I regard the establishment of Israel as a great victory of the United Nations.'
Since then Israel has grown into being an extraordinary state, but it would be remiss not to mention that in the process there is another question which has arisen, and that is the question around the existence or the creation of a Palestinian state. From the late sixties and early seventies, as we saw independent movements across the world gain momentum, the plight of the Palestinian people—a group who sought to have their own self-determination—also came into focus. There were terrorist tactics used in respect of this cause, which gave it some complexity, but at the end of the day the existence of this community who sought a nation was a fact and a cause which could not be denied.
I do understand, as a supporter of Israel, the desire for Palestinian statehood and I sympathise with it. If global justice is to be our measure, it will not be fulfilled until the Palestinian people have an opportunity to live within a fully fledged nation of their own. I know that there are many in Israel who share that view. I know that there are many in Israel who are opposed to the movement to establish Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. That said, it is absolutely essential that Israel itself is able to live within its borders in peace and security. The ever-present threat of Islamic-extremist terrorism in Israel is a fact of life, but it shouldn't have to be. The governmental task of providing national security in Israel is one that is unimaginable to us. It's in that context that I support what is really the bipartisan policy of Australian foreign policy: a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine.
In the meantime though there is a wonderful relationship to be built with both the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. We have a development assistance program in the Palestinian Authority, which is important in terms of building that community's resilience. But in the State of Israel itself, we now have a high-tech, incredible country from whom we have so much to learn and so much to gain by building our bilateral relationship. I have been privileged to visit Israel, as I have the Palestinian Authority, on a number of occasions, and know the opportunity that it presents. Australia was there at the very beginning of the creation of Israel. We are very much a close friend of Israel, and it is an enormous honour today to be able to celebrate the 70th anniversary of those diplomatic relations.
It drives me and my Labor colleagues on this side of the House to in fact double-down on our efforts to recalibrate the relationship between government and First Nations as a matter of priority. We can't afford to keep treading down the same path of failed policy responses to what are longstanding historical structural inequalities, and that means saying no to lazy policymaking. It's that lazy policymaking that has undermined or indeed removed the capacity for self-determination from First Nations peoples and communities. From where I stand, that means saying no to blunt interventionist policies that have no effective exit strategy, have no pathway for First Nations peoples to regain control of their own lives and destinies and have no capacity anymore to build healthy, safe, sustainable and prosperous communities for First Nations peoples now and for their future generations.
It's time for governments to be bold. It's time for governments to think seriously about that relationship with First Nations people, to now invest in First Nations communities and community-controlled organisations and to support those terrific community led successful programs on the ground. That's what this government needs to do. That's what a future Labor government will be doing. I cannot bear to spend another year standing in this House reporting on the failure of government to in any way, shape or form close this gap. Enough is enough.
During my presidency of the Australian Medical Association, I visited many remote Indigenous communities. I wanted to get firsthand information about what affected the health of these people in these communities. I recall a number of stories that made a very strong impression on me.
As we flew into one community in Western Australia, and we hit the red dust airstrip—the only way in or out of the community if there was a medical emergency—I was told that the airstrip was unsafe and unusable for many months of the year in the wet weather, when it became a river of mud. A child had recently died from a snake bite; they couldn't be airlifted out because the airstrip was unusable. The solution would have been sealing the airstrip, and the community have been asking for that for some years.
In another community, there was a high rate of chronic renal disease. People needed regular dialysis but they couldn't live on country, so they were forced to either move to the city or die on country. They were forced to leave their families. The medical service eventually did receive a dialysis machine but there was no generator in the community to support it and to power it—it was still sitting in a storage shed behind the health centre. These are the sorts of systemic failures that contribute to the gap we hear about between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
In 2002 the AMA began to publish its annual Indigenous health report card, under my presidency. It was aimed at highlighting persistent inequalities in health outcomes and longevity. The AMA report cards since then have continued to highlight fundamental issues in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, from addressing specific health conditions to looking at systemic failures contributing to these poor health outcomes. The medical profession has long and strongly advocated for increased awareness amongst governments, politicians, the media and the general public of the state of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. The most recent AMA report card identified equitable needs based funding as a gap, and the need for systemically costing, funding and implementing physical and mental healthcare plans. In particular, it identified and recommended options to fill the gaps in primary health care, including addressing environmental health and housing issues and other social determinants.
One example, from 2017, is that the AMA Indigenous health report card called on all governments to work towards ending chronic otitis media, or middle ear infections. Poor ear health disproportionately affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, particularly children, and causes a lifetime of hearing loss. It's a disease of poverty. It is directly linked to poorer social determinants of health, including unhygienic overcrowded conditions and inadequate and inappropriate health services.
The medical profession has long demanded proper funding for proven, targeted programs, and for governments to fund and resource services that are delivered in a community-controlled way. However, we're still left with the unacceptable situation that preventable, chronic health conditions are not being well-managed. The promises by successive governments about closing the gap remain illusory. The statistics speak for themselves. A life expectancy gap of around 10 years remains between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians. Preventable admissions and deaths are three times higher for Indigenous people. There are matters contributing to these statistics, including: prevailing community attitudes; housing; education; an ignorance about culture and indifference about Indigenous culture; and a failure to invest in Indigenous language.
We can't close the gap if we just put money into medical services. There are still many Indigenous Australians who don't have access to proper sanitation, running water or fresh nutritious food. Health will never improve under these circumstances. The fact is that successive Australian governments have failed to invest in what Indigenous communities actually need. Indigenous people are too rarely consulted about their needs, and many do not have access to basic standards of living, like proper housing.
In a recent positive development, the Council of Australian Governments announced in December 2018 that it would establish a formal partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to work with governments on finalising a refresh of closing the gap. While there's been some opportunity for negotiations with Commonwealth, state and territory governments in the past, this is the first time that COAG has agreed to engage in a joint decision-making process. A coalition of almost 40 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies from across the nation is now providing legitimate community-controlled representation, and will be signatories to the formal partnership arrangements on a refreshed Closing the Gap framework.
Cheryl Axleby, Co-Chair of National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, noted:
We must be the architects of policies that affect our lives and the partnership must recognise our right to self-determine if the quality of life for our peoples is to be improved over the next decade.
Ms Axleby continued:
Solutions to end over-imprisonment must be developed holistically alongside other areas of disadvantage in the Closing the Gap strategy - health, education, employment - in order to create real change for future generations. In addition, family violence, child protection, disability and housing targets must be added.
On this subject, it is essential to highlight domestic and family violence, which has a particularly damaging effect on Indigenous women, who are up to 35 times more likely to experience this form of violence than non-Indigenous Australian women. Indigenous women and girls are 31 times more likely to be hospitalised due to domestic and family violence related assaults compared to non-Indigenous women and girls. We must do better to address this horrific situation.
This years Closing the Gap report found that progress on only two goals was actually on track: increasing the number of Indigenous children in early childhood education and halving the year 12 attainment gap. The goals to close the gap in life expectancy by 2013, halve the gap in child mortality rates by 2018, halve the employment gap, halve the gap in reading and numeracy by 2018, and closing the gap in school attendance by 2018 are not on track. The mortality rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is still more than double the rate for non-Indigenous children. Homelessness rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are double the rate of non-Indigenous Australians.
Ms Axleby noted:
The Commonwealth Government has never had a deadline for ending the over-incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people - this is why we need a national justice target to make progress to end this human rights injustice.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are 17 times more likely to be in prison than non-Indigenous Australians. In the last 10 years, the incarceration rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women has increased by 80 per cent, with 34 per cent of the women's prison population being made up of Indigenous women.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community's failure to be heard by governments has long been at the crux of the disappointing progress in closing the gap. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations participated in good faith in the consultations led by the Commonwealth in the first stage of the Closing the Gap Refresh conducted in 2018. However, the consultations were only superficial, and draft targets were developed later without any involvement of the Indigenous stakeholders. It is this lack of genuine partnership which we must change if we are to deliver much better results in the next phase of Closing the Gap.
Mr John Paterson, a spokesman for the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation suggests:
You are not going to get kids to go to school if they haven't had a decent night's sleep because of an overcrowded house, you are not going to get kids to go to school if they haven't got food in their tummy … you ain't going to get kids to go to school if parents are not encouraging them to go to school due to lack of support services for parents.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want to have a say over their lives and matters that impact on them. We should invest in building the capacity of Indigenous Australians within their communities. That's why it's so disappointing that the government has decided to ignore the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is only through continuing to address the systemic inequalities that exist in all areas of the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that we will be able to begin to have a real influence on health outcomes.
Can I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wentworth, who we just heard from. I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we gather. I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I recognise and pay my respects to the traditional owners of lands all across Australia. In particular, I recognise the Wathaurong and Djadjawurung people, the traditional owners of the lands that make up what is now the electorate of Ballarat.
First Nations peoples have called this land home for tens of thousands of years. Far back beyond recorded history, Indigenous peoples have lived their lives here. They raised their children, they supported each other, generations came and went and they developed their customs, traditions and practices, which today constitute the world's oldest living culture.
In more recent times, however, since the landing of Lieutenant Cook in Botany Bay almost 250 years ago, Indigenous Australians have had to battle against disease, discrimination, massacre and cultural desecration. This ongoing battle has left vast inequalities in the life expectancy, mortality, education and employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians when compared to others.
Last week the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both spoke in the House following the delivery of this year's Closing the gap report. Sadly, what the report tells us is that the gaps are still too large and that First Australians are still experiencing inequality on a scale that is an embarrassment to our nation. The failure of our nation is incredibly stark. We've failed to address the gaps in education, in life experience, in employment and in lifelong health. Rather than making the nation more equal, in a number of cases we are moving further apart. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his response last week, we have all too often failed to address racism and cultural destruction.
Addressing this is an important task at hand, particularly when it comes to health. The evidence tells us that culture and strong identity are key determinants of good health. The healthcare system of our nation must be culturally safe and free of racism. All too often it is not. I would like to think that, as a nation, we are good at calling out egregious acts of racism, and as the shadow minister for health I think it is particularly true of our health professionals. However, the evidence is that racism does occur in our health system. This ranges from a lack of understanding that unequal need requires unequal care to disturbing incidents of individuals being denied care or medicines that they need, because they are Indigenous.
That people are to this day denied appropriate treatment because of assumptions about their culture or compliance or backgrounds frankly needs to be tackled head-on. A survey of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Victorians last year found that a staggering 88 per cent of those asked reported incidents of racism from nurses, and 74 per cent had experienced racism when dealing with GPs. It is obvious that, if you experience racism at a hospital or in a healthcare setting, it's less likely that you'll go there for treatment. This is something that our nation must continue to address, and I commend the many, many health organisations that are tackling this issue.
But sometimes people aren't even aware that it's occurring. It's a key reason why we must increase the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at all levels of our health workforce. It is also why we need to make sure that there are reconciliation action plans across all of our health service providers. We know that it's important to do that.
It's also important that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have a voice in what is happening about them. It is absolutely critical that we stop doing things to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and that we actually do things with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. In particular, we must engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, and in the health space we have to understand the unique and important role played by our Aboriginal-controlled community health organisations.
I cannot see a better example across this country of the WHO's vision of universal primary health care than our Aboriginal-controlled community health organisations. They are providing incredibly important services across areas of early childhood development and across areas of healthcare need, both in prevention and in treatment, that are critical to this nation, and it is to them that we must look to help close the gap.
I think it's very disappointing that there are reports that the government is attempting to look with Aboriginal-controlled community health organisations at their relying far more on MBS billing to fund their services than the block grants that they currently receive, and there is currently work being done by the government to try to look at settling the funding formula for Aboriginal-controlled community health organisations going forward. I think that, if the government is pursuing more MBS billing and less gap grant payments, it is very, very mistaken in doing so, and it's certainly not something that I would support.
I think it is really important that we look more closely at how we can support and better promote Aboriginal-controlled community health organisations to help close the gap. They will be the key. They will absolutely be the key, and we need to strengthen the work that we do with them. As we know, we must confront our mental health challenges in particular that lead to the tragedy of suicide and address those diseases with a high prevalence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. A decade on, and with our nation on track to meet only two of the seven Closing the Gap targets, it is beyond time that we recommitted ourselves to doing everything that we can, understanding everything that we can, to actually ensure that we improve in particular the Closing the Gap targets when it comes to health. That will only happen when we work closely with Aboriginal-controlled community health organisations, when we work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership and when we recognise that it is not our role here in this parliament to tell Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people how they should feel or what they should do or what treatment they should receive; it is up to us to actually listen.
We have had a very powerful message sent to us by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Uluru statement. It mightn't be everything that we in this place wanted it to be; it might be something different. But it's not our job to tell them that they got it wrong; it is our job to try and work out how we can improve and increase the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the decision-making process—because we know that the more control people have over their own destinies and there own care the less likely they are to suffer health and mental health problems.
I again recognise that we have had the Closing the Gap statement to our parliament. I commit myself as the shadow minister for health—and if we are successful after the next election and I am in different role—to absolutely working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to close the gap in this nation.
It was fantastic to hear that contribution from the member for Ballarat and shadow minister for health. I know that she absolutely means it. I also want to recognise the significant work that the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, has been doing in Indigenous health over decades. That knowledge is going to be very important in the future. He has seen about a decade of Closing the Gap reports and there hasn't been much good news. Unfortunately, there have been some failed policy responses. Having been in the Territory around the time of the intervention, I know that a lot that occurred totally undercut the principle of empowering people and giving them ownership over the direction of their lives and their families' lives. At the moment, I think we can see some examples in the fact that those opposites seem determined to keep justice targets out of the Closing the Gap formula. I think that is a mistake. You need only look at the incredible rates of incarceration of First Nations people in our country to realise there is something really wrong that needs to be addressed.
I have been part of a team that has been working on policy for many years in preparation for government. Obviously, I hope we get the opportunity to address some of those policy responses that are clearly failing. One thing I will mention is the failed Community Development Program of the current Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, who is also from the Northern Territory. I note that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Northern Territory, Selena Uibo, a brilliant young woman, a very talented, passionate and grounded young woman, has written to the Prime Minister in relation to that failed program. Unfortunately, what we have seen with the CDP is that it is absolutely driving poverty in First Nations communities.
As the member for Wentworth said, when quoting John Paterson, whom I know well from the alliance of Aboriginal controlled organisations in the Northern Territory, kids won't go to school or be able to learn anything when they're hungry, when they've got empty stomachs. We're failing at that very base level. We've also seen, due to this poverty, an increase in break-and-enters to steal food. That's in the lucky country, our country, Australia. Poverty is driving break-and-enters for food. Predominantly, this has been by young people, children. Often in my electorate in the Top End, people say, 'Why aren't those kids at school?' Sometimes it's because they're out looking for a feed. Sure, this situation has been primarily due to alcohol in some First Nations families. There has been breakdown in some First Nations families, which means that their kids haven't got the supervision or support they need—in some First Nations families, I stress. But we shouldn't have a situation in our country where young people are basically being forced to seek food because there's no food in the house.
We've also seen an increase in domestic and family violence. We've seen an increase in financial coercion and family fighting. We've seen an increase in mental health problems: feelings of shame, depression and sleep deprivation. In many cases it's due to hunger. When you've got the head of the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation in the Northern Territory—an organisation which the member for Ballarat just mentioned as being so vital to us closing the gap—saying that this hunger thing is a real issue, we're listening. Everyone should be listening.
We need a federal government that will help the Northern Territory break these cycles of hunger and crime. Of course, the victims of crime need and deserve justice; but, at the same time, we cannot do what has been happening over the last few years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments, whether it be policy laziness or whether it be just not seeking the right advice from the experts, the Aboriginal leaders in the communities. We haven't been going in the direction which we need to go in. It seems like the can keeps being kicked down the road and somehow we're just expecting that the situation is going to change. We won't see any change until we're listening—as we are committed to do on this side—to Aboriginal leaders and Aboriginal communities. I congratulate Selena Uibo, the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. She's going to do a fantastic job, and she already is. She has been on the front foot to outline the failures in the current policies.
In the time remaining, I want to congratulate Timmy Duggan from my electorate for being chosen to lead new leadership courses through the Australian Indigenous Leadership Centre, which is headquartered here in Canberra but is now doing programs in Darwin. I know Timmy Duggan well. He's a champion sportsman and he's a great leader. He invited me to join him at Don Dale. A lot of people have heard about Don Dale. He runs a basketball program there on weekends. I went along with Timmy to talk with these kids who have been incarcerated about what they want their futures to be and what hope they see. What Timmy said to me was absolutely backed up by these kids on the ground. These young kids genuinely want to upskill and learn for real jobs in the future. Real jobs are what's needed. Aboriginal people want to upskill, they want to learn, and we should give them every opportunity to do that. I commend the Australian Indigenous Leadership Centre for starting programs with Timmy Duggan in Darwin, in my electorate. I look forward to working with him and assisting him in that work.
We need to back the people who are working with young people and keep young people out of the criminal justice system whenever possible. We need to work with communities to see what they think is going to work for their young people. When we listen to that advice, as we have with the voice, we will do better and we will start to close the gap. Everyone, I think, regrets the slow progress in closing the gap on many of those targets. I say again that having justice targets within this framework is really important, because we cannot allow the current situation to continue where our First Nations people are incarcerated, sometimes for not paying fines that really shouldn't— (Time expired)
The Federation Chamber is suspended until 4.00 pm.
Sitting suspended from 13 : 01 to 16 : 02
I've remarked on numerous occasions both in this House and outside how privileged I consider myself to have been elected as the member for Werriwa and how important it is to properly represent the constituents of not only my electorate but the whole of the country. This was crystallised again yesterday, when I was able to be in this Chamber while the members for Lingiari, Barton, Forde and Warringah gave their contributions to this debate, and last week when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition spoke as well. It's deeply disappointing to me that 11 years after the apology and the release of the Closing the gap reports that little has changed, and it is clear that so much more work needs to be done with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to improve the way they live and their opportunities.
Before I go further, I acknowledge the traditional owners of our country. I also acknowledge the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, whose land on which this parliament meets, and the Dharawal, Gandangara, Dharug and Tharawal people, whose land on which the electorate of Werriwa is based. I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging and I acknowledge that this land here and the land on which I live, work and represent in south-west Sydney was, is and always will be Aboriginal land.
Indeed, the electorate of Werriwa takes its name from the Aboriginal name for Lake George. I drive past Lake George each time I make the journey to Canberra. The powerful winds and golden light that flex across the dry plains make it a difficult landmark to miss. It serves as a powerful reminder of the Indigenous heritage of the Canberra region, with its ties to the name of the electorate I represent.
My speech this evening takes the path that I believe all Australians must consciously take in putting reconciliation efforts front and centre of all we do. We cannot have a conversation about how we might close the gap without thoughtfully and critically engaging with the history of the land which we call home.
The Darug people are the traditional custodians of much of the land across the electorate of Werriwa. The Darug people suffered enormously at the hands of Governor Lachlan Macquarie and other early settlers in the Western Sydney region. Their land, food, water and children were taken from them. They were divested of their culture to be made more European. Diseases brought by settlers, such as tuberculosis and measles, further diminished their numbers. By 1840, fewer than 300 Darug Aborigines were alive. That was 10 per cent of the original population.
To set the stage today in empowering Indigenous Australians towards success, it's important that we frame current statistics not only as markers of deficit but also as markers of survival. What I have just described in the above circumstances is common to all of our First Nations people. Behind each statistic presented today is a tale of triumph against some of the most harrowing circumstances that mark this nation's past. Now we are at a point where we agree that Indigenous Australians deserve the best possible circumstances to thrive upon their own terms. I agree with the member for Maribyrnong when he said last week:
… there is good news but not enough good news … hope but not enough hope … progress but not enough progress.
The fact of the matter is that one of the oldest living societies in the world, Indigenous Australians, managed magnificently for over 65,000 years without colonial interference. In the past few years, we've had books like Bill Gammage's The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia and Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu. Books like this speak to the incredible, sophisticated ways that First Nations people managed the land and the waterways of Australia for tens of thousands of years. A well-known example of this is the Brewarrina fish traps, in the Murray-Darling Basin.
Yet this area of Australia continues to suffer under the actions of modern-day Australia. When I see the devastation of the fish kills, the constant devastating cycles of drought and flood and the harm that modern-day life in Australia does to a once carefully cared for country, I think we have a lot to learn from the people who managed to live productively off this land for the last 65,000 years. It is with this in mind that we must take a leaf out of the book of Indigenous people and ask what we can do best to empower you.
The new Western Sydney Airport, in my electorate, provides a new opportunity and a fresh start in the age of reconciliation. I'm pleased to say that I know, as a member of the community consultative committee, that the WSA corporation and the government are working closely to ensure that the Aboriginal heritage is recorded and managed sensitively during the construction of the airport. There have already been eight stakeholder forums, and discussions are underway with those who know the land and have history with the region, ensuring that the airport will be built with First Nations input.
The Western Sydney City Deal also includes a strong commitment to Indigenous job targets, jobs for First Nations people, to ensure that there is clear impetus to include and engage Indigenous Australians front and centre with the prosperity that this project will bring to our region.
These may seem like small measures, but the institutional change required in closing the gap is going to take time and commitment. We need to build our institutions in Australia to include governance and input from our Indigenous people. I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister discussing the changes in the statistics as wins and victories. Of course the statistics go some way to measuring the level of disadvantage that Indigenous Australians experience. But things like institutional empowerment and government input are so much more important and so much harder to measure. Only through self-determination, governance and input will we be able to truly empower our First Nations people.
I am proud to be part of the Australian Labor Party, a party that recognises the fundamental importance of Indigenous voices within our sphere of national government. I wholeheartedly support our measures to formally ensure that Indigenous Australians play an integral role in our nation's governance structures. An Indigenous voice in the parliament is absolutely crucial. This will ensure that all our parliaments have in perpetuity First Nations input on laws and lawmaking for Australians' futures. So too is the inclusion of the additional recognition in our Constitution.
We can't go back and correct the wrongs of the past, but what we can do is commit ourselves to closing the gap, working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to improve health, living and educational outcomes as soon as possible. And we need to commit ourselves to doing that now.
Last Tuesday, on a perfect Canberra morning, it was my pleasure to join the Indigenous Marathon Foundation's Closing The Gap fun run and walk. It was 7 am on a crisp day and there we were at the shore of Lake Burley Griffin at the aptly named Reconciliation Place. The Indigenous Marathon Project, run by the Indigenous Marathon Foundation, was established by Rob de Castella and has, to date, sent dozens of young Indigenous Australians through its training program. The capstone is the New York marathon, but Indigenous Marathon Project participants then go back to their communities to set up Deadly Fun Runs. It is both a leadership program and a community engagement program. I commend Rob de Castella, one of my great heroes, for his initiative in setting it up.
I acknowledge those from the Indigenous Marathon Foundation—Aaron West, Adrian Dodson-Shaw, Amanda Dent, Laura White, Peta MacKinnon, Sophie Linehan and Cara Smith—as well as those from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Emily Jones and Rachel Norman. It was a pleasure, too, to be joined by my colleagues the member for Rankin and the member for Lingiari, as well as Senator Scullion.
I have had a long association with the Indigenous Marathon Project. Over the course of 2015 to 2018, I set about running each of the world marathon majors as an Indigenous Marathon Project supporter, wearing their singlet. I was pleased to complete that last year, having done New York, Boston, Chicago, Tokyo, Berlin and London as an Indigenous Marathon Project supporter—253 kilometres in all. The final race was in Chicago and I was feeling a little wobbly as I came into the 35-kilometre point when suddenly I felt a hand grab me on the back of the head. I thought, 'Who on earth in a marathon would be grabbing you on the back of the head?' I looked over my shoulder and there was Charlie Maher, the first bloke to cross the line for the Indigenous Marathon Project. Charlie could tell I was struggling. He could tell there wasn't much point saying very much, so he just said two words—'Stay strong.' I did, and I managed to finish. With it, I had that sense of pride that really only comes from pushing yourself beyond the limits you thought you had. Charlie, like so many of the Indigenous Marathon Project graduates, is an extraordinary young man and will bring about extraordinary change in his community and across Australia.
There are just a handful of facts one needs to quote to recognise the challenges that we face in Indigenous policy today. The child mortality rate among Indigenous people in the Northern Territory is over 300 per 100,000. Nationally, the rate is less than 100 for non-Indigenous Australians. If we look at smoking, the share of Indigenous mothers who smoke after 20 weeks of pregnancy is 38 per cent compared to 12 per cent among non-Indigenous mothers. If we turn to education, the writing levels in NAPLAN of year 5 non-Indigenous students are higher than the levels for year 9 Indigenous students. The life expectancy gap is 8.6 years for men and 7.8 years for women, meaning that Indigenous Australians, on average, get eight fewer years with their families and loved ones. They get eight fewer Christmases, eight fewer birthdays and eight fewer years of productive work.
In the employment space, we know that there is not only a gap in Indigenous employment but also a potential challenge from automation. One of the interesting observations made by this year's Closing the gap report is the figure on page 102 which looks at the share of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians employed in what is known as 'routine work', which are jobs we know are particularly prone to automation; that share is higher among Indigenous than non-Indigenous Australians.
Then there are indicators that are not presently among the Closing the Gap targets. Incarceration rates are, among Indigenous Australians, 2,481 prisoners per 100,000 people; among non-Indigenous Australians, 164 per 100,000 people. When the Australian Electoral Commission analysed voter turnout in the 2016 election, they estimated that voter turnout overall was 91 per cent but, among Indigenous Australians, just 52 per cent.
The original six Closing the Gap targets are: in life expectancy, closing the life-expectancy gap within a generation; in child mortality, halving the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018; in early childhood education, ensuring access to early childhood education for all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities by 2013; in literacy and numeracy, halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievement for children by 2018; in year 12 or equivalent attainment, halving the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment rates by 2020; and, in employment, halving the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2018. Then school attendance was added as a seventh target in 2014—closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance by 2018. Those original targets were renewed, and now, in the case of early childhood, look to 2025.
The sad truth of the Closing the Gap targets is they are not, in large part, on track. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which sets out each of the targets and whether they are on or off track.
Leave granted.
The table read as follows—
Closing the Gap targets table
I thank the government. According to the current numbers in 2019, only two of the seven targets are on track, those being the early childhood education target and the year 12 or equivalent attainment target. To compare this with earlier years: in 2013, for example, three out of six targets were on track; even last year, three out of seven targets were on track. To have only two out of the seven targets on track is, to all members of the House, I'm sure, deeply disturbing.
As the Leader of the Opposition outlined in his response to the Closing the Gap statement, a Labor government will enshrine a voice for the First Australians as our top priority for constitutional change. We will also embrace initiatives to encourage more teachers and more effective teachers in Indigenous communities. We'll train more Aboriginal apprentices and double the number of rangers. In our first hundred days, we will bring together people from all over the nation—police, child safety experts, families—to work out what must be done to protect the next generation of First Nations children. We'll invest in Aboriginal healthcare providers. We'll make justice reinvestment a national priority. And we'll support Indigenous languages, in this, the International Year of Indigenous Languages. Labor will provide compensation to survivors of the stolen generation from Commonwealth jurisdictions and create a national healing fund for descendants managing intergenerational trauma. And we'll abolish and replace the Community Development Program.
True reconciliation must be both practical and symbolic. It must recognise that there is deep value in the acknowledgement of the traditional elders of the land on which we meet, as I do in my public speeches, and as I do now, for the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples, and as our parliament does when we open each day. It comes to reconciliation action plans being pursued by businesses and community organisations. It goes to simple symbolic acts. For example, is it really appropriate that the heads on Australian coins should be those of a monarch from the other side of the world rather than the heads of famous Indigenous Australians? Why not have our own Indigenous Australians gracing Australian coins?
It is appropriate that we in Australia acknowledge how far we have to go. This Closing the Gap report is a vital piece of truth-telling to Australia. It is to our shame, but it also a reminder of the work to be done to ensure that not two out of seven but seven out of seven targets are on track to be met.
In making my comments today, I would like to cover off about the importance of the Closing the Gap document, talk a little bit about the history and importance of the apology, talk about my work here in parliament during the six years I have been member for Indi and talk about what's next.
Let me start with some history. There is a wonderful book called Corroboree or war party: the last dance of the Wangaratta Pangerang. This book talks about the first contact with white people in my area in 1894—the great adventurers Hume and Hovell. It says Hume and Hovell actually followed the Pangerang footsteps; Hume and Hovell didn't make the route themselves. It says that 'members of the 1824 exploration expedition travelled along native pathways. There were no other tracks except such as were made by the natives in the neighbourhood of the water.' A little bit later, it talks about the area around the Ovens Valley of north-east Victoria in 1824. It says: 'The natives hereabout are evidently numerous as they conclude from their fires, the smoke of which is observed in every direction, and yesterday their voices were distinctly heard but none of them could be seen.' So, the early white settlement history in early Victoria is recorded here. This book is by Wendy Mitchell, who did it as part of her masters degree in regional development.
In my growing up, that is probably the history I got of my area. And it wasn't really until I agreed to stand as the member for Indi that I paid some serious attention to the history of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who live in north-east Victoria. It was the apology that first brought this to my attention. As members would know, the then Prime Minister Mr Rudd made the apology. The federal member for Indi at the time decided that she would not be present for the apology; she abstained. The reaction in my community was one of horror, because she was our representative and she wasn't there.
I was part of the general movement that said that was not good enough; we didn't want a representative who wouldn't represent us. That was one of the driving forces that encouraged me to put my hand up. I made the commitment that, when I got elected, I would come to parliament and I would make the apology on behalf of the people of Indi, which I did. In preparation for getting elected, I met many of the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I made a policy commitment in 2013 that, if elected as a member of parliament, I would form an advisory committee of Aboriginal people to assist in providing advice on issues of health, education and employment. I committed to make a public statement to recognise and acknowledge past mistreatment of stolen generations and I committed to make an acknowledgement to traditional owners of the land on which I meet at every public assembly. I am delighted to say that I have been able to do that. That was commitment No. 1.
The second part of me being a member of parliament was to be a representative for my community. I am delighted and proud to say that I think I have been able to do that—not perfectly but I have certainly begun. I have made formal speeches in parliament around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues in my electorate. I have been speaking on Closing the Gap. I have asked questions. I have reported on local activities. I have had Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander come to Canberra, and we have had deputations. So, that is good work.
Also as a member of parliament I have been able to reach out and network with some of my communities. I want to briefly put on record and thank and acknowledge the work of the three local Aboriginal networks in my community that provide me with policy advice—the Gadhaba in Mansfield, the Dirrawarra in Wangaratta, the Albury-Wodonga Aboriginal Network and their leaders. I won't name you all—there are far too many—but I thank you very much for welcoming me into your community.
I want to acknowledge the First Nations elders advisory group, which I've met with twice, this year and late last year, and thank them particularly for their words of wisdom and the issues that they've presented to me about housing, health and their want to be involved in closing the gap at a regional level.
I want to talk especially about some of the key aunties and uncles that have helped me understood my job better: Aunty Betty Hood-Cherry, Uncle Freddy Dowling, Catherine Coysh, David Noonan, Tammy Campbell, Darren Moffitt and Chris Thorne. Thank you so much for your patience and your tolerance. You've taken me under your wing as your federal member and you've taught me a great deal. Following the learning from knowing you, I was encouraged to put my hand up to be considered for the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition. I think that was really when I absolutely came to understand the responsibility I have as a member of parliament. Though I thought I'd done reasonable work representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, I know our work hasn't even seriously begun.
I want to talk briefly to the report of the committee. It says:
We believe there is a strong desire among all Australians to know more about the history, traditions and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their contact with other Australians both good and bad. A fuller understanding of our history including the relationship between Black and White Australia will lead to a more reconciled nation.
There are recommendations in the report to do that, particularly around truth-telling. I want to talk for a minute about this committee of inquiry, because it came to Albury-Wodonga. We had a number of local people come to present. We had over 24 submissions from Indi to that inquiry. As I sat and listened to the local people talk about our history of white settlement and efforts around health and education, I came to understand how far we have to go and how far my community has to go before we even begin to do some of the serious work of closing the gap.
I now get to the part of my speech where I acknowledge the work of the constitutional committee. I want to say thank you to Senator Pat Dodson. When we were in Broome, he took me around and showed me his community through his eyes. If you ever go to Broome and have the opportunity to be guided around by Aboriginal people who give you a sense of their 60,000 years of history, it's the most wonderful thing to behold. I want to say thank you to Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, who came to Beechworth and delivered the Kerferd oration to over 400 people at Beechworth. At the end, she got a standing ovation for not only her skill of oration but also her ability to reach across the divide of the Northern Territory and north-east Victoria to connect with the community and give us a sense of our shared journey together.
I want to say thank you to Linda Burney, member of the House of Representatives, and the leadership she has provided in the House, but also our shared work with the Torres Strait Islander women's leadership group. Linda, in acknowledging you, I also want to acknowledge your partner, Rick Farley. When he was with the National Farmers' Federation, one day he pointed out to me—he said, 'Cathy, never ever forget that Australia has a black heart.' I take that so strongly. What a wonderful thing it is to think that our culture and our nation is formed, and the heart of us is our Aboriginal traditions. I also want to thank Julian Leeser, the co-chair of that committee, for his wisdom, his knowledge and his professionalism. I learnt so much from watching him at work.
In bringing my comments to a close on Closing the Gap and bringing the last speech I will make in parliament around this topic to a close, I want to commit to do four things: I want to talk about our history, I want to talk about being solution focused, I want to talk about recognition of traditional owners, and I want to talk about the importance of Closing the Gap, but beginning at grassroots and not doing top-down work.
When I finish being a member of parliament, I commit to understanding and documenting the history of white settlement in my community, because, when we started to look at finding out who the traditional owners in our community were, there were very few of them, and they don't live locally. And the reason why they don't live locally is that they died or they got moved somewhere else. I live in a really populous part of north-east Victoria, and we don't have our local history of that white settlement. I'm going to work with my community over the next 10 years to document it and begin that process of truth-telling, and I invite the young people here today to be part of this journey with me, as part of your school curriculum. As young leaders, come with me on the journey to understand our history, our long-time Indigenous history. I hope, like me, you will be inspired by it. (Time expired)
I begin by acknowledging the Ngambri and Ngunawal people, the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, in my electorate of Canberra, and I pay my respects to their elders, past, present and future. I'm grateful for the opportunity to once again speak on the Closing the Gap report. Like the member for Indi, this is my last opportunity to do so. I've been speaking on these reports since I became the member for Canberra, and it is a great honour again to be able to speak on this latest report. Reading these reports, we see that there are incremental gains every time. There are some significant gains, and in some sectors there are no gains at all. It does make for poignant reading. It's a poignant reminder of the work that we have yet to do to ensure true equality for the diverse First Nations people across the country.
The overall message of Closing the Gap this year is one of hope, and that's what we need to take from this report. As I said, while we haven't achieved all the targets set in the majority of sectors, we are making significant progress in many others. We've seen improvements in the education sector, and we're on track in early education, with 95 per cent of First Nations children enrolled in preschool in 2017, which is a fantastic result. In the ACT we've achieved universal enrolment for all First Nations children. We're also on track in year 12 attainment, with the gap narrowing from 36 per cent in 2006 to 24 per cent in 2016. These achievements are significant and they should be celebrated, particularly that extraordinary achievement on early education. Once you get the children in at that early age, they're more likely to continue right through to secondary and then onto vocational or potentially tertiary education.
While the overall literacy and numeracy rates are not improving at the pace we need them to, there have still been some significant gains. First Nations students in year 9 are on track in numeracy across every state in Australia, and there's been an 11 per cent increase in the number of students who are at or above national standards in years 3, 5 and 9. In the ACT, all year groups are on track, reaching key literacy and numeracy targets. It's no wonder I'm proud of this community! It's no wonder I bang on about how wonderful it is all the time. These are fantastic figures. They're fantastic figures for the nation, particularly, as I said, that 95 per cent for early education. That's a significant achievement. And there's also the year 12 achievement and the year 9 literacy and numeracy achievement. Yes, there are gains being made, and we should applaud and celebrate those gains. But we can't take our eye off the ball. There is still a lot more work do be done, and not just throughout the rest of the country but also here in the ACT, despite these very good figures.
We know there is a link between education and employment, and improved education outcomes for First Nations people can only lead to greater job and economic security in the longer term. There are also links between improved education outcomes and improved health outcomes, and this is evident here in Canberra. We've got that fabulous record on early childhood, on year 9 literacy and numeracy and on year 12 attainment, and we see those knock-on-effect benefits in terms of employment and health outcomes.
What's really helping with the health outcomes here is the Winnunga Nimmityjah, the community health service down in Narrabundah, which has been providing primary health services to our First Nations people not just here in Canberra but also in the capital region. It has been providing primary healthcare services for 30 years. We celebrated this in style last year at the National Portrait Gallery. The member for Lingiari was there. The Minister for Indigenous Health and Minister for Aged Care was there. Senator Malarndirri McCarthy was there, as was Senator Pat Dodson. It was a wonderful night in celebration of this achievement. It was definitely a celebration of the fact that from little things big things grow, because when Winnunga first started it had a $200,000 budget and it was being run out of a tiny little office, from memory. Now it's this amazing facility, this amazing health service, that's right in the guts of our community, right in the guts of Narrabundah, and it just keeps growing. I've spent the last nine years, the last three terms, trying to get funding so that it can grow, so that we can get more health facilities and services and more discreet entry points for sensitive counselling and sensitive drug treatment services. We've been blessed by the fact that the First Nations people of Canberra have had access to this wonderful service, this tailored service, for 30 years.
In the Aboriginal Wiradjuri language, 'winnunga nimmityjah' means 'strong health'. Winnunga is one of more than 160 organisations nationwide that is focused on delivering primary health care to First Nations people. Winnunga is really special in so many different ways. It's very much tailored to the needs of the First Nations people of Canberra and the capital region. It provides a culturally safe, holistic healthcare service for people all around this area. Depending on the service, between 30 and 40 per cent of the capital region uses it, in addition to people who are living here in Canberra.
The range of services varies dramatically. We've got counselling services, dental services, diabetes services and services for kidney health. We've also got maternal health. That's a relatively new service. There's a maternal health centre there, which looks after infant welfare and also reproductive health. It provides a broad range of services from trying to fall pregnant to pre- and post-natal care. This is all provided down at Winnunga, in addition to a range of other services. It's a great facility. The team there is wonderful. It's run by Julie Tongs and a fabulous board of committed leaders. The medical team, the nursing team, the dental team, the counselling team and the other staff there are all wonderful. They've been there a long time. They're all deeply committed to improving the health of the First Nations people of Canberra and the capital region into the future, and they've made some significant gains. All power to them.
Canberra is also home to the Khaamburra Netball Tournament, which is a tournament for First Nations people. It was originally set up by the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander netball organisation and the Tuggeranong Netball Association. I am the proud patron of the TNA. The tournament provides participation and it also provides culturally safe and inclusive education and training opportunities in line with the Netball Australia pathways. Since 2015, Khaamburra Netball has helped First Nations girls gain confidence and self-awareness of their history and community, and the pathways program allows for representative development and the opportunity to compete in the national Indigenous schoolgirls netball tournament. I'm a proud patron of the TNA, as I said, but also of the Khaamburra Netball Tournament. Engagement in this tournament, which I have supported since its inception, grows every year in terms of bringing in Indigenous girls, women and boys to come and compete in a national tournament. People from Queensland and New South Wales come to compete in this tournament, which I think is a very rare tournament. It may not be the first of its kind, but it is one of a handful of its kind.
An essential aspect of closing the gap is recognising the strong community ties in First Nations communities and finding a way to partner with and rely on the community to enact positive change. Winnunga and Khaamburra Netball are very good examples of community engagement here in Canberra, but this engagement needs to be much, much broader. The pervasive message of the Closing the gap report this year is one of hope, as I said earlier. While we still have work to do, we have seen improvement in the lives of many First Nations people, particularly here in Canberra and in the capital region, and significant improvements in areas like education. As a community, we must work tirelessly and commit to working tirelessly to ensure the history and culture of our First Nations people are not lost, to ensure true equality for all and to create a better, more united Australia.
Debate adjourned.
I'm delighted to speak today on the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019 and the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019, which will provide long-overdue recognition to the members of the Australian civilian surgical and medical teams who served alongside our Australian Defence Force personnel during the Vietnam War. I am especially delighted to recognise the young nurses who were part of these teams who volunteered for service.
I'm sure everyone in this place would agree that nurses are very special people. They care for those who are sick and vulnerable. They go above and beyond to make sure people are as safe and as comfortable as they can be in their times of need. Nurses do wonderful work every hour of every day in our hospitals and throughout our healthcare system. And nurses go above and beyond to serve our nation in times of conflict and in times of war. As the director of the Australian War Memorial, Dr Brendan Nelson, noted in his commemorative address at the Bangka Day 75th anniversary memorial service in 2017, which I was honoured to attend:
A nation reveals itself in certain subtle but powerful ways.
Beneath the Byzantine inspired dome of the Hall of Memory at the Australian War Memorial is interred the Unknown Australian Soldier.
Standing silent sentinel above him are fifteen stained glass windows. Each depicts a serviceman and nurse from the First World War.
At the base of each is a single word—worthwhile intrinsic virtues, values informing character. Derived from the Greek word meaning the impression left in wax by a stone seal ring, transcending all else in life is—character.
The most prominent image chosen in the centre facing Anzac Parade across the lake to the parliament is neither the light horseman nor a Naval Officer.
It is a nurse.
In her hands is a basin containing instruments. Immediately above her head is the Red Cross—universal symbol of charity. Further above it is a pelican feeding her young directly from her bleeding heart, the ultimate symbol of the quality named below—Devotion.
To completely subsume yourself into the people and the cause to which you have committed.
Straddling Anzac Parade are our nation's sacred Memorials.
The nurses' memorial simply says, Beyond all praise.
I believe that the teams of young doctors and nurses who travelled to Vietnam as part of Australia's contribution to the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization aid program were beyond all praise.
These mainly young people had little idea about the country that they were travelling to, the conditions they would encounter there or the lifelong physical and emotional impact it would have on their lives. In fact, one civilian nurse, Betty Lockwood, from my home state of South Australia, describes the naivety of these medical officers in the book Behind the Wire by Susan Gordon-Brown, which I recommend to everyone and I have here with me today. I quote from Betty's recollection:
I saw volunteering in Vietnam as an absolute adventure. I really was as green as grass. My parents were horrified because my father had been a sergeant major in the army and obviously knew all about wars. There was no in-depth training or preparation. We went over there totally ignorant of what to expect, with only the information that previous team members had given us.
These volunteers simply wanted to help and to do so by providing medical aid, training and treatment to local Vietnamese people in South Vietnam. They wanted to do their part to support our national effort in Vietnam and to, in their way, support our troops, who were doing their bit to serve our nation as well. These volunteers went to help at a time when Vietnamese medical facilities and capability had dramatically diminished as a result of the war. They did so while putting their own lives at grave risk.
These bills, the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill and the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill, ensure that the surviving members of the SEATO surgical and medical team have access to the same level of health care provided to the ADF personnel whom they served alongside. These bills acknowledge that, like for many of our Vietnam veterans, the effects of the war in Vietnam have been enduring and have had a significant impact on their lives and recognise the hazards and dangers to which they were exposed.
Civilian nurse Betty Lockwood illustrates this in saying—and again I quote from Behind the Wire:
Our first visit to the hospital in Bien Hoa was a culture shock of monumental proportions. It was totally unbelievable to come from a facility like the Royal Adelaide Hospital and go to a unit where you wore thongs and no stockings.
We dealt with amputations, shrapnel from grenades and mines, repairs to bodies from mine explosions, high-octane burns and napalm burns.
We in this place will never be able to fully understand what it was like for the Australians serving in Vietnam in whatever capacity they found themselves there.
I have, however, been honoured to gain some insight from the time I've spent with my local resident Helen Taplin. Helen is an amazing woman. She has a fabulous and quite wicked sense of humour. She is a tough, determined, no-nonsense Australian and she's a person who never ever gives up. I've known Helen for some time now. I met Helen at a community event at the Brighton RSL and she said that she was keen to discuss with me the closure of the repat hospital by the state Labor government, which was devastating to all of our veterans and anyone associated with the veteran community. She outlined to me how important the services there had been and, as I said, she was keen to discuss it further. So I invited Helen to my office and we sat down and had quite a good chat about the repat hospital. In fact, I spoke about the repat hospital in the House today, because I've been working closely with the state Liberal government to see services returned to the site. On Sunday we announced the master plan to reopen the site and re-establish services there.
As an aside during the meeting, Helen mentioned to me that she'd volunteered to travel to Vietnam in October 1969 as a civilian nurse in the Australian SEATO medical team and that she had been fighting for decades for her and her colleagues to receive the gold card for veterans. She mentioned it and she said, 'But, Nicolle, I know we're never going to get anywhere.' She said, 'I'm not going to waste your time with it because I've told my story so many times.' I said, 'Helen, I'm really keen to hear about your experience and you just never know.' So Helen explained to me how she had been fighting for decades to see the measures that we're introducing in this bill implemented. Over the past year and over the course of numerous meetings together, Helen has told me about her experiences. She has illustrated them to me by sharing personal photographs and anecdotes of the injured children whom she cared for and let me know about the land mines that she narrowly avoided.
I'm just going to read from Helen's story in Behind the Wire explaining her very close call, which is explained in a way that only a lady as no nonsense as Helen can explain it:
This gorgeous young kid by the name of Cam had napalm burns and nothing was clearing his wounds at all. So "Weary"—
'Weary' Dunlop, who was her team leader—
suggested we try the maggot trick. So out we went and picked up maggots in the rubbish tip. Imagine the smell and the heat. The next thing we hear is the voice of an American army man yelling: 'Ma'am, what are you doing? You're in the middle of the minefields and this is POW outskirts. I suggest you leave immediately.'
Cam ended up well and everything worked, and Helen survived to tell the tale, thank goodness! Like all of our Vietnam veterans, Helen's stories are of bravery, mateship and survival in the toughest of conditions. I'm so proud that we have finally been able to deliver the benefits that Helen and her team deserve after all this time.
I'd like to also take this opportunity to note that, despite being ineligible for DVA gold card benefits—until now, with the legislation that is before the House—Helen is the recipient of an Australian Active Service Medal, awarded for service in or in connection with prescribed warlike operations. I would like to today pay tribute to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and, particularly, to the Treasurer, who has tirelessly raised this issue throughout his time in parliament and, I believe, is very much responsible for making today's outcome and this legislation possible.
Having met with Helen a number of times, I wrote to the minister and I also wrote to the Treasurer to outline my support for the provision of recognition and repatriation benefits to the members of the SEATO surgical medical teams, and I have been harassing both the minister and the Treasurer ever since on behalf of Helen and all of her colleagues. While I acknowledge that many of Helen's colleagues and friends are no longer with us to share in this long overdue milestone, I'm proud that we have been able to finally deliver the outcome that she and others have spent so much time and effort fighting for.
This bill will provide eligible recipients with medical treatment for any medical condition, including access to the mental health support provided to our veterans. It's expected that these measures will benefit the 200 or so surviving civilian medical team members who served in Vietnam, including Helen. Coming into effect from 1 July 2019, having been brought forward from July 2020, the provision of a Department of Veterans' Affairs gold card will provide the members of the civilian surgical medical teams with full access to the medical treatment they require as soon as possible. These bills are not just about medical care but also about recognition and acknowledgement of the service and sacrifice that the SEATO officers made.
It was also particularly special to me to have this announcement made on 14 February not because it was Valentine's Day but because that is a date that reminds us of other nurses who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. During World War II, 14 February 1942 was the date that the SS Vyner Brooke was bombed and sunk by Japanese bombers. Twelve nurses were lost at sea after that bombing. A further 21 went on to be massacred by the Japanese on Radji Beach on 16 February 1942, and more nurses lost their lives as they were held as prisoners of war. It was a significant coincidence that we introduced this legislation on 14 February to assist other nurses who have made such a significant wartime effort.
I just want to conclude with some of Helen's own words that best summarise the importance of the measures that we're debating in this place today. Again, I'm going to quote from Behind the Wire by Susan Gordon-Brown. Helen says in the book:
I am so honoured I went. So pleased I had the opportunity to go and see for myself what war is like. I just hope that, possibly, I gave them a little bit back. The Vietnamese are the most wonderful people. They'd give you anything when they had nothing.
Helen also said:
Thinking of my team members, there's not many of us who had children; many have suffered dreadful illnesses, including cancers. I have colon cancer, though there's no history in my family. Monty, a brilliant nurse, went on two tours. In 1983 she was very ill with cancer and she said to me: 'Keep fighting, we should have some recognition.' They had not acknowledged us because they say we were not under the Defence Force. I started writing letters to the government, trying to get some acknowledgement that we were Vietnam vets. We felt it was time that we were recognised. You've just got to keep fighting. And I will.
Well, Helen, my message to you today is that you can stop fighting. Today you finally get the recognition that you deserve.
I thank the member for Boothby for that outstanding speech.
I rise to speak on the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019. The effect of this bill is to create full health coverage for the civilian doctors and nurses and others who provided aid in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972—our 'MASH' personnel, for those fans of the 1980s show. I know that a couple of my friends who make a bit of music are big fans of that show. The Australian civilian surgical and medical teams provided medical aid, training and treatment to local Vietnamese people during the Vietnam War, and this bill will give them access to a DVA treatment card or a gold card.
It is appropriate that these civilians receive this recognition and assistance. They provided invaluable service under trying and dangerous circumstances to people who desperately needed their medical aid, as we heard from the member for Boothby's speech. It is only proper that their service to Australia is recognised alongside that of our brave service men and women by providing them with the care that they might now need in their later years.
The government originally announced this proposal on 16 December, but they announced a start date then for the policy of 1 July 2020. Understandably, the delay in the start drew much criticism and some strong advocacy from members of parliament, from the former service community and from their families and supporters. Why delay this policy? The recipients of this health cover have waited long enough. Some of them especially need the health care now. So I'm pleased to see that the government have brought the start date forward.
Labor welcomes the expansion of the gold card to members of the Australian civilian surgical and medical teams who put their lives on the line to assist as part of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization aid program in South Vietnam. Service should be recognised, and it should be valued by all of us. That is the purpose of the gold card for eligible veterans and former members of the ADF, their widows or widowers and dependants: to recognise that great service to our country.
It is important that this parliament and all Australians recognise the unique nature of military service. We know that it is challenging. We know that it causes extra stress and possible health complications. We know that they are prepared to put themselves in harm's way on our behalf, on behalf of this nation, so we should not be complacent about our defence forces and those who are called to serve. We need to look after them while they're serving, and obviously we need to look after them when they return.
I'd like to particularly mention one of Australia's greatest institutions, and that is our returned and services leagues and all of their associated entities. I note the great work they do in supporting both current and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force and their families. I have five RSL clubs servicing Moreton: the Sherwood-Indooroopilly RSL, the Salisbury RSL, the Stephens RSL, the Sunnybank RSL and the Yeronga-Dutton Park RSL. I've spent quite a bit of time with these clubs over the last decade and worked very closely with them in recent years, particularly on their ceremonies for the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings and a few other community projects associated with this.
The RSL has a very proud tradition. All over this nation, RSLs have been working hard for veterans and their families—since 1916, in fact. As well as supporting and serving our ex-service men and women, the RSLs promote a secure, stable and progressive Australia. We're indebted to them for the services that they continue to provide, not only directly to the returned service men and women but indirectly through the community work that they do.
I want to touch on some of that. I mentioned the Sunnybank RSL and their work with the local Chinese-Australian community, led by the indefatigable Lewis Lee. As the make-up of the Sunnybank area has changed over the years, the RSL, rather than watch the community change, decided to engage with the local community. So they created a memorial for all the people of Chinese heritage who have served Australia in past wars. The memorial recognises soldiers like Billy Sing and Caleb Shang, who fought in World War I, and Jack Wong Sue, who served for Australia in World War II. Often these people were shot at, put in harm's way, but they weren't actually able to vote in the country that they call home, the country that they were prepared to die for.
There are many other great stories of courage and bravery from the Chinese-Australian diaspora, and they have been partly commemorated by this memorial at the Sunnybank RSL. One of the stories I want to focus on is that of private Billy Sing, a sniper with the 5th Australian Light Horse Regiment. He was originally a kangaroo shooter from Northern Queensland, but he was lucky to be able to weave his way through what was quite a racist call-up process and go to liberally. Conservatively, he is credited with 150 kills in Gallipoli. He was known to his fellow soldiers as the assassin and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for conspicuous gallantry as a sniper at Gallipoli. To this day, the Australian Army snipers recognise the skill of Billy Sing, a Chinese-Australian who could not vote back here.
The physical memorial at the Sunnybank RSL was a labour of love for the Chinese community and it has contributed to stronger links between that community and their local RSL. It is a continuing reminder of the diversity, cooperation, understanding and friendship that exists on Brisbane's southside and also goes a long way to recognise some of the slights and horrible racism that existed in an earlier time when people were able to fight and die for their country but not actually allowed to own land because they were not seen to be Australian. Why? Irrespective of being born here, it was basically because they looked 'too Chinese'.
Whilst there is a physical memorial in Sunnybank, there is also an ongoing series of bursaries, with funds raised by the local Chinese community. Local school students enter an essay competition. They own the stories and tell them over and over again. Basically, the flame is renewed every year; it is kept alive by the Sunnybank RSL and the local students on Anzac Day.
I would also point out that the success of the Chinese war memorial project has inspired commemoration contributions from other communities. Now, the Indian community has a project underway. They have erected a memorial for the Indian-Australian service men and women who contributed to Australia's war efforts in the past. This also is a great project. I enjoyed working with the Indian-Australian community and seeing that memorial completed, dedicated and become a part of the local community. Like the Chinese memorial, there are also bursaries associated with this physical memorial which is also located in the grounds of the Sunnybank RSL. Again, there is a living bursary, where students from local high schools td the research and tell stories of Indian service men and women. It is a way to keep the Anzac tradition alive and reflect the local community.
It is important to, whenever we can, show our respect for all Australian service men and women. The Chinese and Indian war memorials are a permanent show of respect for these brave Australians. They sit alongside all the other war memorials in the grounds of our RSL clubs, which mention the names of service men and women who gave their lives for this country and some of the famous battles and wars.
Sadly, some of these men and women may not have been shown the respect they deserved when they were alive and wearing the uniform of the nation that they call home—and I know that similar stories have been told of Indigenous Australians. We have only had protections in our laws from being offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated on the basis of race for the last 20 years or so. It is a reality, but we need to make sure that we work with our RSLs wherever we can to make sure that they are strong, vibrant service organisations that reach out and connect with former ADF personnel and make sure they have strong connections with their communities and the supports that come with it.
I have mentioned the Sunnybank RSL. I do recognise my other RSLs, so I do apologise to them for focusing on Sunnybank, but I want to commend Hugh Polson and all of his leadership team for their initiative to erect these memorials for the Chinese and Indian service men and women. These activities will create greater awareness of the role of all Australians in our history. As I said, it will counter some of the racist rhetoric that occasionally gets spouted in some political quarters. All Australian service men and women deserve to be looked after when their service is completed, and when they are serving this nation they deserve to be respected.
Sadly, I take this opportunity in talking about this legislation to also recognise a local returned serviceman who was very active in the community and was a member of the Sunnybank RSL. His name is Kim Chang. Kim Chang, a relatively young man, sadly passed away recently. Kim was secretary of the Australians of Chinese Heritage War Memorial Committee. He did great work there. He served in the Army, the Reserve and, later, in the Queensland Police Service. A lifetime of serving his community. As I said, he was a valued member of the Australians of Chinese Heritage War Memorial Committee and all the great work that flows from that and the great message it sends to our community.
Kim Chang also helped run RSL improvement projects like the interior repaint of the hall in Sunnybank RSL, which is not only used by RSL members from the local area but also many community organisations and groups. I've certainly used it on many occasions. Kim Chang was also a keen dragon boat racer, something that is quite an event held on the south side of Brisbane every year. Kim's love of dragon boating was not just a personal hobby; he was working with Mates4Mates, a support organisation for veterans in RSL Queensland, to create a program supporting veterans' recovery through dragon boating. I certainly hope it's a legacy for Kim Chang that this work will not be lost and the program to support veterans will continue to be developed and implemented, perhaps in his name.
Sadly, earlier this year Kim unexpectedly took his own life, leaving many of his close friends from the RSL in shock. I particularly mention Adam Lowe, a serving member of the RAAF who was completely surprised. Kim, you'll be sadly missed by many in the local community and at the Sunnybank RSL. I extend my condolences to his family. I mentioned Kim Chang and the great work of the RSLs in my community because we must recognise and continue to remember the sacrifices made by those who serve this country either on the front line or when they return home. As this bill reminds us, some of those who serve are not necessarily in the Defence Force uniform, but they serve alongside them and let them do their job. They also should be recognised and remembered. I commend this bill to the House.
It is a fact that medical practitioners are as vital a component of an armed force as any other role. They may not routinely carry a weapon, but nor do chaplains, quartermasters or intelligence officers. What they do is more important. Bluntly, they save lives. There are thousands of Australians who would not be with us today if it had not been for the prompt, professional care and attention of the medical teams. These teams deserve our gratitude and our praise. This amendment allows members of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, SEATO, surgical medical teams who were employed in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, to become eligible for the Department of Veterans' Affairs DVA gold card from 1 July 2019.
It seems bizarre that this is only something we're fixing now, so let's have a look at the story so far. The SEATO medical teams have been advocating since at least 1990 for a DVA gold card. While most reviews stated that the teams were not entitled to receive veterans' benefits, the 2000 Moor review recommended that the team members be granted qualified service. This recommendation was rejected by the then government, as the team members were not under the command and control of the ADF and were not allotted by Defence for duty in Vietnam. As such, they were deemed ineligible for veterans' benefits. This decision was patently wrong.
These medical teams were serving on the battlefield under extreme danger, facing the same threats, traumas and dangers as their regular ADF comrades. These teams played a vital role during the conflict through providing much-needed medical assistance and training and treating thousands of Vietnamese civilian casualties. They provided this support at a time when Vietnamese medical facilities and capability had dramatically diminished as a result of the war. While the medical teams were not under the direct command and control of the Australian Defence Force during the Vietnam War, they were exposed to hazards and dangers as a result of working in a conflict zone for the Australian government. Team members experienced the effects of a war known for its brutality. While their experiences are not parallel to those of the ADF members, SEATO members were not untouched by their experiences.
Thankfully this government agreed to provide the team members with the gold card in December 2018. This was implemented through new legislation which will create a distinct and separate eligibility for this cohort rather than providing eligibility through existing veterans legislation. This measure provides important recognition to the civilian surgical and medical teams of about 240 doctors, 210 nurses and a small number of administrative and technical staff employed on the teams during the Vietnam War. The government expects about 200 surviving members of the teams could benefit from this measure. The SEATO medical teams are a special case in that they were particularly exposed to the horrors of war by virtue of their medical role. They were exposed to the dangers in that they were not protected by the ADF and were in areas where there was no frontline. Importantly, the Moore review advocated for benefits for this group.
It is also important to recognise that the team members were all civilians. They all volunteered to do something dangerous that was not part of their job, that put their careers on hold, to willingly travel to a conflict zone in order to provide aid and support to an ally whose civilian medical facilities had been dramatically diminished as a result of the war. They played a vital role in the broader Australian government's support to the South Vietnamese during this conflict and they did this completely separate from the ADF. To date, these civilians have not had the same access to treatment and counselling for a range of mental health conditions that ADF veterans have had. The gold card will now provide the necessary support. With the gold card, regardless of whether it is related to employment in Vietnam, eligible SEATO members will be provided with access to medical treatment for any medical condition.
However, there is still an outstanding issue: timing. The original start date of 2020 was predicated on the legislation not passing until later in 2019 and the need for DVA to develop new eligibility criteria, processes, procedures and IT systems for a group that is not a usual DVA client group. Members of the team raised a number of concerns about their failing health, and advocacy was received from them and a number of associations requesting the measure be brought forward. The government has listened to these concerns and has brought the measure forward as a result, and it's great to see that Labor is supporting this measure. Thank you, Labor. This is one of those times that government is uncontentious and doing the right thing, even if it should have happened many years before.
Bennelong has a great history as a home for veterans. While Ryde provided the largest per capita number of volunteers for the First World War, large parts of the area were settled in suburban blocks designed for veterans of the first two world wars. It was veterans from the first three local RSL sub-branches that were amongst the five founding clubs that instigated the first Anzac Day march a century ago. This heritage of caring for veterans continues to this day, with large DVA housing developments by the Parramatta River in Ermington at the site of the old torpedo factory. Today 1,500 people live in this development named the AE2 in memory of the only submarine to penetrate the Turkish defences at the Dardanelles. Bennelong mixes a memory of our rich military history with care for the veterans who call our region home today.
We're also very lucky to have a dedicated group of sub-branches looking after our local veterans. Our local sub-branches have looked after our veterans and those who've served for decades. Some of these clubs were amongst the first marchers on Anzac Day a century ago. We have great advocates for veterans, like Bernie Cox, John Prestige and John Curdie, and, with such a large multicultural community in Bennelong, we also have multicultural veterans who served in the Korean War, like Paul Kim, a veteran of the Korean War and a great supporter of our Korean community. Our local ex-service members are well served by these dedicated people.
Finally, before I sit down and while on the topic of celebrating veterans, I'd like to commend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on the outstanding work he's done of late, including the Saluting Their Service program. This is an excellent initiative to acknowledge the exceptional work of our men and women in uniform. We're all well acquainted with the uniquely Australian habit of remaining quiet about one's achievements, but all too often that means the sacrifices and hardships of our veterans and currently serving members go unrecognised. This is deeply regrettable. Every person who has worn the uniform in defence of Australia has protected our shared freedoms and our way of life.
I'm proud to say my office is currently organising a promotional campaign to ensure the Saluting Their Service program is advertised far and wide across Bennelong. We hope to see as many veterans as possible included. I would like to especially thank the three RSLs in my electorate for their efforts—the North Ryde RSL, the Gladesville RSL and the Epping RSL sub-branch. We hope that together we'll be able to reach out to as many veterans in our community as possible.
I want to congratulate a couple of people with regard to this legislation that is going through the House today. Firstly I'd like to congratulate Bob Elworthy, who heads up the Vietnam Veterans' Association in Victoria. A few months ago I attended the annual meeting of the Vietnam Veterans' Association's Victorian chapter They actually held it over the river, in Mulwala, on the border of Yarrawonga-Mulwala. However, the message from the Victorian chapter of the Vietnam Veterans was very, very simple: 'If you can do anything to help us, we want to help our SEATO nurses and doctors. All the other things we can squabble about—our pensions, our crook backs, our bung knees, a few of our members who need a bit of additional help and all of that—but give our SEATO doctors and nurses the same benefits that we enjoy, primarily the gold card access to medical assistance. That's our No. 1 ask.' And I'm sure other states were just as vocal about wanting these benefits for their colleagues, who might not have been signed up to the military of the day but were just as important. They were helping our people in the Defence Force in that conflict in Vietnam in every way, just as much as those who were part of the Defence Force.
It was only after the conflict was well established that Australia realised that we didn't have the medical expertise that we needed to support our troops in Vietnam. It was only sometime well into the conflict, which started in 1962, that we realised we were going to be short on support. The whole concept of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization enabled the civilian medical teams to arrive, and certainly what they were able to achieve was quite amazing. There's a whole list here, with the legislation, of what looks to be some 30 or more specialists that were over there helping our troops. As I said, many of these health specialists were over there for a long period of time. They saved an enormous number of lives and helped so many of our troops when they were injured. They helped to nurse them back to health. They assisted them in every way. Yet, as it turned out, once they returned back here, whilst they were acknowledged, respected and appreciated, they weren't given the same assistance as our troops were given to get on with their lives life.
Having thanked the Victorian chapter of the Vietnam veterans, I now want to give special thanks to the minister here, in the chamber, because Minister Chester picked this issue up and ran with it, with genuine fervour so that we could achieve this in a very short time frame, before the upcoming election. He was very keen to knock over this issue. I also want to thank Minister Chester for what he is doing in relation to the covenant, the lapel pins and making the card available to all of our troops who have served overseas. All of our troops who are proud veterans will now be able to wear a very stylish lapel pin. It's subtle. There is no big-noting about this. It is just a subtle acknowledgement that, yes, I have served my country; yes, I have served overseas. It is a great initiative. I think it's going to be really well received. As we know, most of our military troops, our returned servicemen, do not want to talk or brag about or even enter into talking about their service too much, but I think most of them really do appreciate the fact that Australians hold them very, very dear. Australians do appreciate their service. We are becoming much more relaxed about acknowledging our servicemen and thanking them for their service.
We have about 200 surviving members who will benefit from this measure. We understand that the conditions which they were working in at the time were appalling. The injuries which they had to deal with would have been significant, yet they were able to work miracles with the work that they did. When they came home, some of them would have suffered exactly the same injuries and illnesses that many of our troops suffered, yet they weren't eligible for the same treatment as our troops. With the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019 and the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019, they will be able to get the treatment that they need.
If you receive a gold card following your service overseas, it entitles you, the holder, to DVA funding for all necessary clinical healthcare needs and for all health conditions, whether they are related to war service or not. This is going to be very much appreciated by these professionals, most of whom, I would imagine, would be well and truly retired. Hopefully, this is now going to help them. Most of them would be in their 70s by now and looking to get some of their ailments treated into the future. Medical consultations and procedures covered by the Medicare Benefit Schedule, medical services and surgical procedures listed on the MBS in public and private hospitals and day surgery facilities, medical specialist services listed on the MBS as well as medication reviews will all be covered under the services that are delivered through the gold card.
It is a fantastic story and, again, I just want to acknowledge the advocates who have been pushing for this reform for a number of years. It's great to think they have had their voices heard. For the 200-odd professionals who are now going to be able to receive the medical attention that they need, it must be fantastic for them to know that it wasn't just their own lone voices but also the entire weight of the Vietnam veterans pushing this cause on their behalf.
I want to again acknowledge those advocates who have worked hard for this. I want to acknowledge the minister, who has gone above and beyond, not just for this reform which is going to pay acknowledgement to a special and select group but also for the work he is doing in relation to ensure the respect and, I suppose, self-esteem that our returned servicemen would have had privately is now going to be able to be shared by all Australians as we acknowledge our returned servicemen in the way they always should have been.
I thank the member for Murray for his encouraging words. I too rise to support this very important bill, the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019. It's been nearly 20 years since the plight of members of the civilian surgical teams who served in Vietnam was raised by a civilian nurse who became seriously ill with a condition associated with exposure to herbicides and identified in studies documenting the cancer incidence of Vietnam veterans. In 1999, after her claim for benefits under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 was rejected, the matter went before the Veterans' Review Board. The board affirmed the decision; however, it expressed regret that the nurse was not able to be compensated under the act and identified an anomaly whereby the act makes a distinction between different conflicts when it comes to Commonwealth employees performing special missions outside Australia. It identified two options: an amendment to the act or a claim to Comcare.
Despite a positive finding from an independent review into service anomalies in February 2000 recommending that members of the civilian, surgical and medical teams operating in Vietnam be deemed as performing qualifying service for repat benefits, the government refused to acknowledge the nurses' claims on the basis they were not attached to the ADF. Comcare, the Commonwealth workers' compensation scheme, was the only option for those nurses who developed illnesses and injury as a result of their service in Vietnam. For a number of reasons, this scheme is not suited to deal with war-related injury and illness. Despite the processes put in place to facilitate claims through Comcare, nurses were still disadvantaged in comparison to the veteran community. Fundamentally, because it's a workers' comp scheme, it is not designed to deal with the complexities arising from injuries incurred as a result of the trauma of war. This is precisely why there is a different system for veterans.
In 1962, the Australian government was asked by the USA to supply an army training team as well as surgical services and medical care to the South Vietnamese people and the large refugee population from North Vietnam. Both groups were part of the contingency planning of the bipartisan SEATO—the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation—by the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Defence, as was the major commitment of ground troops in 1965. The SEATO civilian surgical teams were the first official Australian medical surgical support group sent into South Vietnam. The other military services did not arrive until 1966. The civilian team was also the last Australian medical surgical group to leave. The overall time in Vietnam ranged from October 1964 to New Year's Eve 1972. Approximately 450 civilian nurses, doctors and other allied health personnel served on these teams. This represents the largest group of Australian doctors and nurses to serve in South Vietnam during the war.
SEATO nurses were sent to Vietnam by the Australian government to serve in civilian surgical and medical teams as part of Australia's strategic and military commitment to the Vietnam War. Many of the nurses have suffered the same illnesses and medical conditions as have Vietnam veterans and that are similarly war related. Conditions include post-traumatic stress, other anxiety disorders, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, cancers and other immune system disorders. The claims set out conditions that were not all covered by Comcare.
One wonderful nurse was Dot Angell. She was a free-spirited 20-something when she answered the Australian government's call for civilian volunteers to head over to Vietnam in the thick of war and serve in the relief effort. It was 1967 and Dot became part of the Alfred Hospital civilian, surgical and medical team which would spend several months at the Bien Hoa Provincial Hospital, tending to anyone and everyone who walked through the door. The project was run under the umbrella of SEATO, with more than 450 nurses and doctors signing up to the cause, as I said before. The civilian teams had begun journeying to Vietnam in 1964. Dot said:
Nobody said anything to us. Nobody told us what it would be like. Being young and having just got back from three and a half years overseas and it being the Swinging Sixties I was young and foolish and decided it would be an adventure so I volunteered.
Dot recalls working around the clock in a race to treat the scores of patients caught in the crossfire of war:
We treated anybody who came through the gates at the hospital, whether they were friend or foe. We were dealing with war injuries. We were dealing with traffic accidents because Bien Hoa was a refugee town and packed to capacity. We also dealt with illnesses, some of which we had never seen before, such as plague, typhoid, and cholera.
She said that she had vivid memories of one two-year-old who was brought to them by his sisters, who were aged seven and 10. The parents were nowhere to be seen, presumed dead. The child weighed less than 50 per cent of the normal weight for his age. She remembered a six-year-old in the same condition, who was brought as a last resort by his mother who was very frightened because the VC had spread a rumour that the Australian medical teams castrated little boys.
Tuberculosis, infestation with intestinal parasites, leprosy and malaria had always been major causes of morbidity in Vietnam, but by 1967, with the overcrowding and squalid conditions, bubonic plague had spread to 24 of the 41 provinces of South Vietnam. Cholera was also on the rise and there was a possibility of a widespread epidemic. These nurses and doctors worked amongst it all.
The aims of the surgical team were to provide a general surgical/medical service of quality for the South Vietnamese; to teach, mainly by example, new surgical techniques and procedures; and to establish mutual goodwill—to establish a relationship of confidence and trust with the local people. The nurses from Bien Hoa are still very proud of the school of nursing that has a bachelor degree that exists today in that country.
To sum up the situation in which they found themselves whilst working in isolation with the civilian population, they bore witness to:
… the broken men, women and children; the villages destroyed; fields turned fallow and poisoned; cities where the rats found a better life than humans; epidemic diseases moving remorselessly with the tide of war; chronic diseases striking down the homeless, the undernourished and the starving … and over it all was an aura of ceaseless battle. In South Vietnam for the dazed, bewildered people, harassed by Vietcong, burned and burned again by American Napalm, uprooted from their thatched huts, herded from one refugee camp to another … there was no escape, for around them endlessly churned the vast technology of war, which had been let loose on their country.
However, each civilian surgical team was able to create a small island of sanity, security and care in the chaotic wilderness of the war zone. Dot Angell said:
We did not notice who it was who had fired the bullet, thrown the grenade, set the booby traps or released the napalm; what did have meaning for us was the burned or mutilated flesh, and the familial destruction and degradation which had been brought about by the war …
… … …
It was not our task to accuse, label or lay blame, our task was to diagnose, to operate, to care, comfort and treat; to inject and transfuse, when we had the equipment, and let others ask the questions. Our medical and nursing skills were to be offered to all who came through the gates of each hospital—friend or foe.
Dot Angell stands here before us today—she is still alive—but she is very sad for approximately one-third of the SEATO nurses who have died. Dot was part of the last of the Alfred squads to head to Vietnam. Her crew handed over the reins to a unit from South Australia. When she returned home she had to go back to business as usual. Decades later, while undertaking a PhD and interviewing a handful of civilian nurses who served in Vietnam, Dot suddenly realised that many of them were experiencing the same health conditions suffered by military forces, such as cancer and post-traumatic stress. This led Dot to establish a special interest group with the Australian Nursing Federation, which I was very proud to be a member and, in fact, secretary of. In 1998 she embarked on an unwavering campaign demanding recognition for civilian nurses who served in Vietnam and claims to the same health entitlements accessed by the military under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Dot and many like her are adamant that the toll of Vietnam remains profound, with many nurses suffering cancers, including lung, bowel and breast cancer, as well as nightmares and flashbacks associated with PTSD.
Almost two decades on from attempting to seek compensation from the government, the battle for Medicare and entitlements is over. In the early 2000s, a handful of government reviews—chiefly the inquiry conducted by Major General RF Mohr—found that civilian teams were suffering higher rates of illnesses than in the general community and had performed services that should qualify them for repatriation benefits.
Dot quipped bluntly to me: 'I think the government's just hoping we'll all die out.' Dot—who suffers from two autoimmune disorders and PTSD, which she attributes squarely to her time in Vietnam—and the close-knit group of civilian nurses remain steadfast in their commitment. She says that the most important thing is that it should never happen again.
The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation has backed the nurses' plight since the campaign began and says it will continue to support the nurses. 'These brave nurses,' said Lee Thomas, the general secretary, in 2016, 'went above and beyond to work in demanding conditions in a relief effort assembled by the Australian government. Their service deserves full entitlements and anything less is a slap in the face.'
There are other nurses—like Helen, who has suffered from cancer of the bowel and autoimmune problems and believes Vietnam is the missing link. Many of them enjoy gathering on Anzac Day to share stories. Helen specifically says she has no regrets, and she remembers the Vietnamese people she met that fill her heart with warmth and joy all these years later: 'I often wonder where they are. They were very special to us.'
The unwavering fight for recognition was reignited by a petition presented to the House of Reps calling for gold cards to be granted to all surviving Australian nurses, doctors, physios, radiographers and lab technicians who served as part of the civilian teams from 1964 to 1972. Dot said, in a very special speech last year at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne:
Today brings back memories of the stoicism and friendliness of the Vietnamese people and the collegiality or 'mateship' between the team members with whom I worked and lived, in what could only be described as the most chaotic and primitive conditions.
She said:
I stand here before you as one of the survivors for approximately one third of us have died. Like you we honour those who have died but we will continue to fight for those who live and suffer.
Today, to Dot and Helen and all the nurses and all the civilians who served in those civilian teams in Vietnam, under the SEATO arrangements: thank you. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts for what you did, for your service and your sacrifice. We recognise what you did, and we are very pleased to say that, at last, you have the justice you deserve.
In summing up, I'd like to thank all members who've contributed to the debate on these bills and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for veterans' issues demonstrated by both the opposition and the crossbench. These bills will fast track access to medical treatment to eligible members of the Australian surgical and medical teams who worked in South Vietnam from October 1964 to December 1972 under the Commonwealth government's Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, or SEATO, aid program. Members of the Australian surgical and medical teams included about 210 nurses and 240 doctors and a small number of administrative, technical and support personnel.
During the Vietnam war, the Australian surgical and medical teams worked under the Commonwealth government's SEATO aid program to provide medical aid, training and treatment to local Vietnamese people in South Vietnam. These people played a vital role during the conflict, providing much-needed medical assistance and training and treating thousands of Vietnamese civilian casualties. They provided this support at a time when Vietnamese medical facilities and capability had dramatically diminished as a result of the war.
The bills recognise the valuable contribution of these teams engaged by the Australian government. While not engaged in combat, members of these teams were exposed to hazards and dangers similar to those experienced by veterans. The Department of Veterans' Affairs estimates that there are approximately 200 surviving members of these Australian surgical and medical teams who, under these bills, will benefit from immediate access to medical treatment from 1 July 2019.
The passage of these bills through parliament would expand the level of medical assistance available to these team members to a DVA gold card, extending medical treatment to any injury or disease. This includes injuries, illnesses or diseases unrelated to their work performed in South Vietnam. These bills also provide for a pharmaceutical supplement and payment for travel costs related to receiving medical treatment. The bills do not provide compensation, as this is already available for these men and women and other civilians through Comcare.
The Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019 is equally as important as the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019 to ensure we can make the necessary amendments and transitional provisions to other legislation required be able to implement this measure.
Our government has listened and brought this measure forward to ensure that Australian surgical and medical team members can access the health care that they need from 1 July 2019.
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of members to the debate on these bills, including the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Amanda Rishworth, who recounted the personal stories, as others have, of nurses including Janet Glasson and Dot Angell and confirmed Labor's commitment to pass these bills through parliament. I'd also like to thank the member for Boothby, Nicolle Flint, who's had a very keen interest in this measure. She spoke passionately today about this issue, and she's been an outstanding advocate on the topic on behalf of the SEATO medical teams. Can I also thank the member for Bennelong, the member for Moreton, the member for Batman and the member for Murray. I'd also like to acknowledge the support of the Treasurer, who, while he didn't speak on the bills, has been outstanding in his advocacy on behalf of the SEATO teams and whose ongoing interest in and contribution to Veterans' Affairs issues should be recognised in this place. I commend these bills.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Australia has proven to be an extraordinarily successful liberal democracy, perhaps indeed the most successful in all of human history. That success is built on many things, not the least of which is our geography. As an island continent hanging from the tip of Asia and linking East Asia with the vast South Pacific, Australia was almost predestined to be a nation underwritten by trade. From the days of John Macarthur through to the TPP-11, Australia's wealth and success, indeed our very security, first as a colony, then as a dominion and finally as a proud, independent nation, have rested on a vigorous free trade agenda.
That agenda is no better demonstrated, and strengthened, then by the dazzling array of game-changing free trade agreements negotiated and concluded by this Liberal-National government with the governments of Japan, China and Korea. Together with the TPP-11 they will open markets and opportunities right across the Pacific basin from Singapore to Chile. But any nation, like any business or individual, must never lose sight of where it comes from and the importance of its strength and relationships. These invariably lie in your own backyard. For Australia, our backyard is the South Pacific and, to even greater extent, the Indian Ocean. Relations across both oceans effectively bookend not just our geographic reality but also our future prosperity, as they also benefit the security, stability and sovereignty of our friends and neighbours across this vast region.
Australia's engagement with this region, and with the Pacific in particular, is vitally important. The Prime Minister recently made Australia's abiding interest in a strategically secure and economically stable Pacific clear to all. Each trade, aid and foreign policy initiative of the Australian government must acknowledge the strategic security and economic stability of the Pacific as a fundamental objective so that all sovereign nations across our region can individually and collectively prosper in a climate of open free trade and cooperation to better meet the needs and aspirations of their citizens.
It is certainly no coincidence that this mutually beneficial objective to broaden and deepen Australia's engagement with our friends and neighbours across the region is also a key aim of the government's 2017 foreign-policy white paper and, as such, will guide the foreign affairs and trade agenda of Liberal-National governments for years to come. With these principles in mind, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill represents just a part of the wider package of measures that are very much in lockstep with the key objectives of the foreign policy white paper and further strengthens Australia's support for the Pacific and will maximise Australia's participation in infrastructure projects across the region.
Here in Australia debate is long and loud on infrastructure due to an almost insatiable demand for improved productivity, safety and convenience—and so too in the Pacific. In particular, in the South Pacific, there is a demonstrable increasing need for infrastructure. The Asian Development Bank estimates that the Pacific region will require US$3.1 billion in infrastructure investment each year through to 2030. Australia can, partly through the agencies empowered by this bill, play an important role to help meet this burgeoning demand. We need new creative ways of financing and funding, new ways of bringing groups together to offer skills and solutions that effectively leverage our strengths and truly work for the communities concerned.
Here in Australia we have sought to embrace new ways of delivering long-term plans and infrastructure. That might include helping unlock private capital through public-private partnerships or even the City Deals that this government pioneered here in Australia, and the like. It follows, therefore, that we also need to embrace new arrangements when it comes to assisting our friends in the Pacific with their planning, financing and funding of critical long-term infrastructure. To this end, international alternative arrangements must be considered; arrangements that include proposed amendments to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act, which are the subject of this bill, and form part of a significant new package of security, economic, diplomatic and personal relationship initiatives that will build on existing strong relationships in the Pacific. Better infrastructure solutions across the Pacific will contribute to stronger growth not only in the communities and countries concerned but also across the region as a whole, including in Australia. The Australian government strongly believes that productive and sustainable infrastructure development is mutually beneficial to Australia and our friends across the Pacific, and the government has made a clear decision to invest accordingly.
This bill seeks three principal amendments to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991. Firstly, the bill will allow the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—commonly referred to as Efic—the ability to finance overseas infrastructure projects, based on an Australian benefit test that will open a larger pool of potential projects eligible for Efic financing. The benefit test will not only account for direct benefits such as the immediate involvement of Australian businesses and for indirect benefits such as greater access to supply chains and new markets, and, therefore, more Australian jobs but will also hold the promise of future benefits to Australia such as improved transport infrastructure and regional connectivity, which will, over time, encourage better economic integration.
Opportunities for dramatically improved regional connectivity are already underway, thanks to the leadership and foresight of this Liberal-National government. Australia is already a key project partner with the governments of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in the Coral Sea cable, which will soon link PNG and the Solomon Islands with Australia. The Coral Sea cable is a very significant piece of regional infrastructure, one that promises boundless opportunities for deep and lasting connections between each of the nations involved; not just economic opportunities but also improved education, health and person-to-person pathways that have the prospect to open and develop further, to provide better solutions. E-health, e-education: this is where infrastructure counts, and we're already doing it.
Secondly, the bill will increase Efic's callable capital by $1 billion on its commercial account. This amendment will give Efic greater flexibility and credibility when managing the expectations of infrastructure project proponents and finance partners. This amendment also provides the means for Efic to offer more commercially significant financing to large overseas infrastructure projects. This additional $1 billion in callable capital represents an effective increase in Efic's capital base of approximately 150 per cent. It is a substantial commitment from the Liberal-National government to increase opportunities for Australia while at the same time assisting our Pacific neighbours. Further, the decision to increase callable capital by legislative amendment will also, with the deliberative authority of the parliament, provide a higher level of certainty for all parties involved.
Thirdly, this bill allows Efic to conduct future operations under the trading name Export Finance Australia. This simpler trading name and stronger brand recognition that references Australia will no doubt boost the profile and work of Efic among Australian businesses and in overseas markets. Only last week I tabled a report in this parliament, on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, that was the product of an inquiry into how small and medium Australian businesses leverage free trade agreements. One of my takeaways from the 153 submissions and 16 public hearings of that inquiry was the relatively low level of awareness and understanding of the work of Efic. Thus I have every confidence in the simplification of its branding name for the purposes outlined in this bill. It will be welcomed, especially by small and medium Australian businesses.
It should be noted, nevertheless, that this bill makes no change to the existing strict risk controls and prudent lending guidelines for Efic in its enhanced infrastructure role or in its commercial renaming, which are made possible by way of these amendments. Efic has achieved a consistently strong record of profitability with high due diligence standards over the last 20 years, which, together with Efic's equally robust environmental and social risk assessment criteria, will be meticulously maintained. There can be little doubt that a greatly enhanced role for Efic, including its ability to complement the Liberal National government's new Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, will boost Australia's attractiveness as an effective partner in regional infrastructure development, improve opportunities for Australian businesses and help to drive sustainable economic growth.
This is such a quintessentially Liberal-National reform. I say this because the amendments outlined in this bill are not simply worthwhile in an immediate or operational sense but also demonstrate great strategic foresight and have tactical merit by seeking to leverage our existing strengths. This bill is not just about empowering Efic to support infrastructure projects and support Australian businesses; it will feed in and complement other initiatives, such as the recently concluded free trade agreements and extensive domestic reforms that support and grow small and medium businesses in Australia.
Yes, this Liberal-National government has its fingerprints all over these reforms, and proudly so. This bill is yet another textbook example of effective policy implementation from the Liberal-National government, policy that is productive, sustainable, mutually beneficial and, most importantly of all, of fundamental importance to Australia, and it's in the best interests of Australians and, indeed, our nearest neighbours. I commend the bill to the House.
The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019 allows the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, Efic as it's more commonly known, to fund offshore infrastructure projects in our region, most notably in the Pacific. It's an area that's dear to my heart as a former parliamentary secretary for the Pacific Islands. I worked for an extended period of time with many of our dearest and nearest neighbours, their governments and their people.
I understand the need for greater support from Australia for development initiatives in the Pacific, particularly around infrastructure funding. It's hopeful that this bill will provide that support. The bill will provide Efic with an additional $1 billion in capital to do so. These loans will be done on a commercial basis and must meet an Australian benefit test. Of course, infrastructure development is one of the most critical needs in the region, particularly the Pacific Islands. There is a clear expectation of many of those in the Pacific region that Australia will take a lead in supporting development in those nations.
The fact is that the Pacific is not travelling well at all. Many in our region face a range of development challenges. These include small domestic markets, narrow production bases, weak regulatory and private sector capacity, low savings and investment rates, and high trade and business costs. They also have a young and very fast-growing population that needs growth and jobs.
The Pacific has also performed as one of the worst regions when it comes to meeting millennium development goals. On the current measures of relative development, it's possible that it won't be too long before Africa overtakes the Pacific on progress towards achieving those development goals. That would mean that the Pacific would be the least developed region in the world. That is quite a scary proposition: the Pacific—our backyard, our neighbours, our friends—being the least developed region in the world. Australia should be a natural partner of choice to assist our close neighbours in their development needs.
Of course, under this decaying Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, we haven't been providing that leadership that our friends in the Pacific have needed. Our leadership role has been eroded under this government. Labor has been warning for some time now that, under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, Australia has dropped the ball in the Pacific. One obvious need in the region is for greater infrastructure investments. As Labor has repeatedly stated, infrastructure investment projects should be transparent; conform to environmental and social safeguards; and not place unsustainable debt burdens on regional countries. Australia has an interest and a responsibility to assist our small regional neighbours with projects that best meet their development needs and provide them with maximum benefit.
That is not to say this is not about any other country; it's about the role that Australia wants to have within the region. That's why Labor welcomed the announcement in July last year by Australia, the United States and Japan of a trilateral partnership to invest in infrastructure projects in the Indo-Pacific region. Labor strongly supports moves to engage more closely with our neighbours within the region. While infrastructure cooperation is a good start, the government needs to do much more. We need to be proactive within the region and to demonstrate our commitment to our Pacific neighbours. The changes to Efic proposed in this bill align with Labor's policy on financing infrastructure within the region. Efic will also be the instrument for providing the loan components of the new Australian Infrastructure Finance Facility for the Pacific, the government's new, other mechanism for providing infrastructure projects.
Of course the Prime Minister's attempts to repair relations with Pacific nations were dealt a blow when the former Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, launched an extraordinary attack midway through the Prime Minister's tour of Vanuatu and Fiji in January this year. In an opinion piece to the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, the former minister slammed the Prime Minister's key Pacific initiative, accusing it of being 'disingenuous'. Labor has strongly argued that Australia must demonstrate greater leadership in the Pacific and play our part in ensuring a stable and prosperous region, but the one thing that we shouldn't be doing is demonstrating chaos and division and misunderstanding about the needs of our Pacific neighbours. We should be playing our part to ensure a stable and prosperous region.
The Liberals' announcements of funds for projects to deal with the impacts of climate change are welcome, but they're very late. No issue has done more damage to Australia's standing in the region then the coalition's refusal to take the issue of climate change seriously. When I was the representative of Australia to the Pacific Islands as the parliamentary secretary, whenever I would meet with representatives of the Pacific Islands, their No. 1 issue affecting the livelihoods of people within their region and their countries is climate change. When you talk about a place like the Marshall Islands or countries like Tuvalu or Kiribati, populations are facing the prospect of having to move. Governments are buying land in other countries to move those populations because they simply can't inhabit the lands that have been their traditional homelands for thousands of years—because of wells becoming salinised, because of being unable to cultivate or grow crops on salinised land, because sea level rise means water is literally lapping up onto vital infrastructure that they rely on for transport. This has been an issue that we've known about for the last decade.
It is unconscionable for the government to come along and have this argument within their caucus and within their party room about whether or not climate change is real and removing a price on carbon emissions, cutting back support for renewable energy development, trying to close down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and trying to close down the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which is financing projects that will reduce carbon emissions in our country, which will have a direct effect on the livelihoods of people in the Pacific. That is why our Pacific neighbours are upset with this government. That is why they've had enough of the bickering and the disingenuous nature of the debate that's been going on within this coalition about whether or not climate change is real, when every other nation in the world seems to accept the science of climate change, and want it to get on with the job of reducing carbon emissions.
The Pacific has felt the impact of the record $11 billion in aid cuts under this government. A quick trip by the Prime Minister to the Pacific, after years of his government's neglect of these critical relationships, isn't going to fix that. Unlike the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, Labor will treat our Pacific partners with respect. Unlike the coalition, we understand the need to reflect our commitments to our Pacific neighbours in our actions, particularly around climate change. A Shorten Labor government will work in partnership with Pacific island states to contribute to their security and prosperity and that of the entire region and will particularly work with those nations to boost living standards through infrastructure development and important social projects around health, education and women's rights in these countries but, most notably, around taking a serious approach to climate change, getting fair dinkum about reducing carbon emissions in our country so that the effects on our Pacific neighbours can be reduced into the future.
Part of being a good and responsible global player means supporting and assisting our neighbours. This is a standard tenet of international relations conventions. It encourages prosperity and peace, and that benefits everybody. Economic integration into the Pacific is not new to Australia. Our country has been deeply enmeshed in the region for well over a century, and we have issued white paper after white paper committing Australia to more ambitious engagement in the region to ensure long-term sustainable growth, increased economic resilience and national security.
The people of the Pacific islands are our neighbours. As my colleague the member for Kingsford Smith has mentioned, they are in the bottom percentile of socioeconomic status in the world. This is not a record we as a wealthy and prosperous nation should be proud of—that our direct neighbours across the Pacific are amongst the poorest in the world. We can and should be doing a lot more to ensure that the nations of the Pacific are prosperous, stable and democratic and that their people are healthy, educated and able to participate fully in the community of nations.
This bill, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019, builds upon what is already happening by providing the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, Efic, the ability to further fund offshore infrastructure projects in our region through the provision of an additional $1 billion in callable capital. This will be done through the provision of loans on a commercial basis and which, importantly, meet an Australian benefits test. So it's a hand up, not a hand out.
In October last year, the Leader of the Opposition announced that a Labor government would create a government funded infrastructure bank for the region, saying:
My vision for Australia is to actively facilitate concessional loans and financing for investment for vital, nation-building projects through a government-backed infrastructure investment bank.
The bill before us and the proposal that it includes align strongly with this ambition. Financing infrastructure of our shared region of the planet is happily a goal shared across the aisle.
Importantly, Efic will be the instrument that provides the loan component of the new Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific which was announced in November last year. The bill, alongside the mechanisms implemented through the AIFFP, will allow Australia to provide financial assistance to the region to build critical, nation-building and high-priority infrastructure through the facilitation of concessional loans and investments into relationships which are fundamental to the region's stability and our long-term security.
I mention long-term security quite deliberately. It's in our interests to have a stable neighbourhood. In your neighbourhood at home, in your own house, it is in your interests to have neighbours who are also in stable homes. We do best when we look after each other. It's in Australia's security interests to have a stable region. So we can provide this sort of assistance, for want of a better phrase, for the right reasons—to assist people, to lift them out of poverty and to nation-build—but also to look after our own interests. Australia is not the first country to sign on to such a program. New Zealand has one. Japan and the United States are exploring options.
It's our responsibility in Australia to ensure that our region is supported. The Asia-Pacific's infrastructure market is expected to grow by seven or eight per cent a year over the next decade. That's estimated to reach a value of $5.36 trillion a year by 2025, representing, I'm told, 60 per cent of the world's total. I do stress that that's the Asia-Pacific, not the Pacific. The nations of the Pacific can be part of this story, but the challenges there need to be faced and overcome, particularly underinvestment and difficulty in accessing finance in order to maintain and replace ageing infrastructure. Pacific nations need investment in electricity and energy assets, manufacturing facilities, transportation networks and water infrastructure. Without this investment, our neighbours risk falling behind even further, leading to even lower living standards and poorer outcomes in health and education.
I take up the comments of the member for Kingsford Smith: climate change is absolutely the No. 1 issue facing Pacific nations. The leadership of the Pacific Islands Forum even place it above global national security concerns. They say climate change is an existential threat to their countries. We've seen the reports of seawater literally washing communities away. It's affecting fresh water supplies. We all remember that infamous joke from the Minister for Home Affairs with the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, when they were caught with the sound mic over them, having a bit of a joke about water lapping at the feet of people in the Pacific islands. Well, it's no joke to them. It might be a joke to people in the nice, wealthy suburbs of the North Shore of Sydney, but it's no joke to the people of the Pacific, who are living with an existential threat of climate change.
It's our responsibility to be part of the solution. It's not all our responsibility; it's a shared responsibility, but, if we are truly going to be a leader in the community of nations, we have to shoulder our burden. It's part of our responsibility, and we have to face up to that. Physically we're an island, but morally we shouldn't be. Providing assistance for infrastructure development means that Australia is being a good neighbour and friend, but, unapologetically, we are, of course, looking out for our own interests.
It's fair to say that some in Australia will view any assistance to overseas nations as a waste of money or as money that should instead be spent in Australia. Some of the comments that members may hear when they're doorknocking around the community are: 'Why should we be supporting poor people overseas when we have our own poor people to look after? What about the pensioners?' We all hear it: 'Why aren't we doing more for the pensioners? Why aren't we doing more for our own people instead of looking after people overseas?' Labor's view is that it's not either-or; it's both. We can and should be a decent member of the international community, not instead of being good and decent for our own people but as well as. We can do both. There is enough wealth in Australia to ensure that we can meet these obligations jointly.
I am drawn to the famous example of the rich man, the poor man, the refugee and the 100 beans. The rich man hoards 99 beans for himself and then whispers to the poor man, who has been left with one bean, 'Hey, watch that guy'—meaning the refugee, who has nothing—'He's after your bean.' We see this scenario played out day after day in Australia. Those with extraordinary wealth and power are turning Australians against each other, pensioners against students, retirees against sole parents, workers against the unemployed. Blame each other for your problems in life! Blame your neighbour who is darker skinned than you or who worships a different God, the woman who demands equality, the kid who's gay. These are the people to blame for your problems and your troubles in life—just so long as you never cast your eye to those who own the billions, who live in the mansions, who fly the private jets; just so long as you never say, 'Maybe you've got more than your fair share.'
But I digress. We invest in the Pacific because it's both the right thing to do as an international citizen and the right thing to do for our own national interest. Many people look at these problems with a sense of disconnect. They look at the road issues in the Pacific region without a sense of appreciation for how addressing the issues there can impact our own lives here in Australia and the wellbeing of the local economy in places like Tasmania. But by investing in the region, by boosting Pacific economies and improving Pacific infrastructure, Tasmanian exporters, for example, are better able to access new markets. Having improved roads and transport networks through the Pacific means that our exporters are better able to get their goods to market there. It opens up opportunities in the Pacific for people to be able to perhaps afford the goods that we have to sell. So it's a symbiotic relationship.
Tasmanians do have a significant presence in the Asia-Pacific. The Asia-Pacific loves Tasmanian produce, and exports from our island are growing year on year. Our produce is trusted. It carries a high brand recognition and it demands a premium. Mainland China remains our biggest export destination, closely followed by Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the US, Thailand, Hong Kong, India, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore and Sri Lanka. I look forward to the Pacific islands joining that list of export markets for Tasmanian produce. There's a lot that we can share together in this regard, and Efic, which of course is to be renamed Export Finance Australia as part of this bill, can be part of that success story.
I look forward to having a continuing appreciation of the export success story that Australia has in the Pacific region. We can and should do more to be in partnership with our neighbours in the Pacific. I had the great pleasure, when I used to work for Duncan Kerr, who was a former parliamentary secretary for the Pacific Islands, of travelling to the Pacific with him and seeing firsthand both the opportunities and the challenges across those nations. They're hardworking, resilient people, and we can and should be doing more, as neighbours, to ensure that we have a greater partnership. I note in passing the Pacific Islander fruit-picking scheme, where Pacific Islanders come to Australia for the fruit-picking season; they'll do a bit of fruit picking and send the proceeds home, and those proceeds then support their families back home. That's laudable, and it helps get the fruit picked, which is difficult to do in Australia and certainly Tasmania; it's difficult to get the labour to have that done. So the Pacific islands have a role to play there. The more we can forge good relationships with our Pacific neighbours and the more we can build on a trusting, respectful relationship across the Pacific and see ourselves as part of, not ancillary to, their future, the better off we all will be. Thank you.
I welcome this opportunity to speak on this bill, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019, and I thank my colleague the member for Lyons and all those from the opposition for their contributions today. I guess this is just another example of the coalition following Labor on policy. It seems to be happening a lot, which is probably not a bad thing. Imitation is the best form of flattery. So we'll see how this goes. I know it's being referred to a Senate inquiry. We'll look forward to what comes out of those recommendations. I'm sure the Senate will look at those when this bill comes to their chamber.
We announced a policy on 29 October, and the Prime Minister announced his on 8 November. Obviously, our policy is to strengthen those partnerships that we have with Pacific nations, and a number of factors that were announced around that have come through the coalition's policy. But the Liberals' commitment has only come about because of their history of blunders, sadly—their missteps, their insults and their policy failures when it comes to the Pacific. These failings came to a head in the last quarter of 2018, since the current Prime Minister was given the role. You can contrast that with Labor. Here on this side of politics, we genuinely want to engage with the Pacific. I'd like to put on record the work of the member for Corio and of Senator Claire Moore, who, sadly, is departing this place. They are both very strong advocates for Australia's role in the Pacific and for the partnership that we have with the Pacific. Their contributions have been very valuable. The member for Corio will continue to do that, as well as a number of other people in this place, but Senator Moore will be sadly missed in her advocacy for the Pacific.
This proposed legislation is welcome but it is long overdue. But it does seek to reaffirm our place in the Pacific, which is a good thing—a place which, sadly, has been compromised by this government, which has clearly taken its eye off the ball. As a result, other nations are gaining a foothold in the region. That, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing but Australia, as the nearest neighbour, should be playing a leading role. The member for Lyons made some valuable points: it is good for security in our region and there are also opportunities for our businesses to work in collaboration with those nations.
The former minister Senator Fierravanti-Wells' successor, Senator Ruston, was appointed as an assistant minister by the PM after all that kerfuffle with the leadership changes. The former minister said that it sent the wrong signal. She said: 'I'm disappointed that this is happening at a time when we have growing interests and growing contestability in the Pacific region.' I guess this is just further proof that this government has not been taking the Pacific seriously at all. Another example was when the Prime Minister snubbed Pacific islands leaders by failing to attend the Pacific Islands Forum in early September. Other leaders were there but our Prime Minister was missing in action, which does not send a good signal at all.
And then we have the issue around the current environment minister, Melissa Price. Senator Fierravanti-Wells called her 'an L-plate minister', which is a little bit harsh—but I guess they are all up for criticism! It was reported that, at a Canberra restaurant, the environment minister said to the former president of Kiribati, Anote Tong: 'I know why you're here. It's for the cash. For the Pacific, it's always about the cash. I've got my chequebook here. How much do you want?' I think we were all pretty offended by that, not just those Pacific nations and Mr Tong. It is reported that Nuie's Premier, Toke Talagi, said: 'People say some stupid things sometimes.' When you are dealing with our neighbours, you need to be a bit more diplomatic in your approach. That's another failure of this government.
Commenting on the issue, Cook Islands Deputy Prime Minister Mark Brown mentioned the government's policy failures on climate change. He said: 'I do understand that science is a difficult subject for some people, but some of these comments coming from Australian ministers kind of resemble the comments you hear from the flat earth society.' I very much agree with him. I think there are a number of people on the government benches who are still debating whether the earth is flat or round! Seriously, we have to get with the times; it is quite embarrassing, really. I agree with the Cook Islands Deputy Prime Minister's comments.
The September Pacific Islands Forum declared climate change to be 'the single greatest threat to the livelihood, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific'. This was a forum that our Prime Minister did not attend—and, sadly, he leads a government full of sceptics. There is an opportunity for that to change in just a few weeks time at the upcoming election. Whilst this proposed legislation is welcome, you can't have a Pacific policy if you don't have a climate change policy. We need to do our bit but first we've got to agree; among those opposite, sadly, there are many that don't.
Another example of the chaos and division of this government is the agriculture visa debacle. We have to look at that as undermining existing programs. It will undermine Tasmania's horticultural industry, which relies on the seasonal worker program. In my electorate, I have a berry farmer, a major large company, which needs thousands and thousands of workers and really does rely on the Pacific islands seasonal visa program. It helps with their product and it helps with the expansion. They are incredible workers. I know a number of the Niueans who are working in farms just near where I live, and they are some of the most amazing strawberry pickers you could ever come across.
This agriculture visa was really a thought-bubble concocted by the National Party to give the new leader of the National Party a win. It didn't happen because the senior coalition partner slapped the junior down—
A point of order.
I will take the point of order.
The honourable member is straying way off the topic of this bill, which has bipartisan support, to support the refinancing of change at Efic.
I'm listening very carefully, and there have been a lot of conversations. I'm sure that the member for Braddon will stay on track, and she hasn't diverted too far off course.
It is important to reiterate the importance of the relationship this country has with our Pacific nations and some of the failures of the current government, but I do acknowledge that we are supportive of this bill. We will see what happens in the Senate inquiry. The relationship is very important to the people in my electorate, and that's what I am talking about when I am talking about the agricultural visa. You might like to say that it is bit of foreign aid to have people like the Niueans come and pick strawberries in my electorate and then send that money back home to their country. I think it's very, very relevant. Maybe the member is a little bit offended by what I've said because it is actually true. But we then look at the backpacker tax, which does has significant implications for some of those workers. That was an issue where this government failed to address the labour shortages in a lot of regional Australia, and some of those are National Party seats, would you believe. Anyway.
We'll go now to the cuts to foreign aid where this government has cut $11 billion. That's a direct impact on the people on those islands. That aid went directly to the Pacific. This is another policy failure—proof, yet again, that this government does not take the Pacific or its people seriously at all. The Pacific will be a core business for Labor. As I said before, we announced some policy and then the government followed late last year. For starters, we will tackle climate change, because we don't believe the earth is flat and we do acknowledge that it is a significant issue of great concern to the people in the Pacific. We welcome the fact that the government has woken up and mirrored our plans in this bill, as I said before, which is important, and I think that's very relevant. Labor has a plan to create a government-funded infrastructure bank for the Pacific to drive investment in the region. New Zealand is already doing this. It's a bit sad when we have to follow our friends from over the ditch, but that's what happens when you act very, very slowly. The United States has passed the BUILD Act. This will establish a development finance corporation called International Development Finance Corporation. A similar body exists in the UK. They will invest solely in Africa and Asia. The international community is acting, and it is welcome that this government is again following.
Labor also welcomes the Australian benefits test that forms part of this bill. This test means any alliance provided by Efic must have a benefit to Australia or a person conducting business in Australia. I just note some of the businesses in my state, those in advanced manufacturing, who can play a critical role in some of the infrastructure building in the Pacific, whether it be through renewable energy generation, with new technology that we can assist Pacific Islanders with, and, of course, addressing climate change. This test means that any loans provided by Efic must have a benefit to those people, which is really important for our own business. Labor will reposition Australia in its rightful place as a friend to the Pacific. In all those examples I mentioned before, we do have some groundwork to make up to re-establish the important partnership that we have. We will enhance security and prosperity in the region. This government can't do it because of their inaction and inability to accept climate change, which our Pacific friends so desperately need us to act on. This proposed legislation is welcome. We will be supporting it, but if the other side were genuine they would also join Labor by making a genuine effort to address climate change.
I reckon a lot of people don't think much about Efic, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. I have to confess that I didn't know a lot about it until several years ago when I got to spend some time working with Efic, with the corporation, and learning what they do. The people who do know about it, exporters, those who've really worked hard to find finance for overseas projects that they're involved in from Australia, know that it is really a key quiet achiever, assisting Australian businesses with financing and insurance to help them expand their reach internationally.
We obviously support the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019 to expand the remit of Efic in this place. But we look forward to it being sent to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee.
There are two things that this bill does. One is to change Efic's name to Export Finance Australia. I'm sorry, but I'm a bit sad to see the old name go; I like the name 'Efic', and I don't think 'Efa' has quite the same ring to it! So I'm a bit sad about that, but I know it will continue to bridge the gap in financing for entrepreneurial Australians who can see export and overseas opportunities. The main change in this bill is giving Efic an extra billion dollars in funding to finance infrastructure investments in the Pacific region, and that includes East Timor. This is a $1 billion hit—a big amount of money—of callable capital to individual countries or companies, being provided at a commercial rate. It's a change because, currently, Efic can only fund projects on its commercial account when it's an export opportunity with a defined minimum of one-third Australian content and Australian job creation measures. Under this bill we get what's called an Australian benefits test, which means it must have a benefit to Australia or a person carrying out business or other activities in Australia—so it is a change in the way that they need to think. I see that the change also means that projects can use local content and local labour. When we're talking about the Pacific, that counts as real development benefits for the host countries.
I do want to point out that there is a strong shared view about the need for Australia to provide funding for projects in the Pacific. In October last year, the Leader of the Opposition announced that we would encourage the private sector to invest in projects, in much the same way as New Zealand, the US and Japan are doing or are considering doing, and that Labor would actually facilitate concessional loans or financing for vital nation-building projects. This is about being a partner of choice for Pacific development, and I think we're all very mindful that that has huge benefits for this nation as well as for our neighbours. I think it goes a long way to enhancing security and prosperity in our region. I was very pleased to see that, less than 10 days after the opposition leader's announcement, we had similar words coming from the Prime Minister announcing both this extra funding for Efic and the creation of the infrastructure financing facility for the Pacific and Timor-Leste.
What the Senate work will allow for is an exploration of how Efic will provide the loan component for that new facility, to ensure there are no unintended consequences and to see if there's a better structure. There are concerns in the investment community about the size of the additional capital for Efic and what consequences that has for the quality of projects that might flow from it. This is also a big change for Efic—a different way of thinking. Until now, it has focused on projects that are in Australia's interests. This bill is now asking it to assess projects that are in another country's interests. I think big changes deserve careful consideration.
We do have a real responsibility, as the biggest of the Pacific Islands, to help them tackle the challenges that come from climate change, a lack of health facilities and other gaps in infrastructure. We need to do it right. I refer to something the member for Braddon said. In her words: 'You really can't have a Pacific policy if you haven't got a climate change policy.' Hopefully, we will see those things put in place so we can do the best by our Pacific neighbours.
I also rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019. We have heard from previous speakers that it will allow Efic to fund offshore infrastructure projects in our region, will provide Efic with an additional $1 billion in callable capital to fund infrastructure projects in our region and will renew our commitment to partnering with and investing in our closest neighbours.
We all know here that infrastructure development is one of the most critical needs in the region, particularly for our Pacific neighbours and Timor-Leste. The development sector, however, and some key stakeholders have raised some concerns about this bill, including the reason for the large increase in the callable capital for Efic. They have questions about the quality of projects that will be funded, the lack of accompanying policy work to improve development outcomes and the conflicted nature of Efic to fund overseas infrastructure projects that were in Australia's interests but not in the interests of the recipient country. We are aware that there need to be strong policy frameworks around this bill. There are many academics and others who have made submissions with respect to that. We need to get this right. A Senate legislative committee has been agreed to by both major parties to examine the impacts of this particular bill. I think that's the right step going forward.
It is interesting, though—just to give a bit of context to this bill—that very recently Labor made a very important announcement in this policy space on financing infrastructure in the region. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, last year on 29 October talked about:
My vision is for Australia to actively facilitate concessional loans and financing for investment in these vital, nation-building projects through a government-backed infrastructure investment bank.
When our Pacific neighbours look for partners to invest in critical infrastructure projects, a future Labor government would make sure that Australia is the first place that they look. We'll make sure, to quote the Leader of the Opposition again, that Australia is seen as the partner of choice in our region. Of course—and this is interesting as well—within a couple of weeks of the Leader of the Opposition's announcement, Prime Minister Morrison effectively copied this announcement. In November he announced the government's new mechanism for providing infrastructure projects, the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific. Efic, of course, will become the instrument for providing the loan component of this new mechanism.
This is about the role that Australia, as a middle power, should play in our region. It's about our role as a good, responsible international citizen. When we help our neighbours prosper, we all prosper. Our world becomes a safer one. Our region becomes more secure. When you engage, interact with and support countries in our region, it's actually in our national interest. It benefits us as well as them. Good governance, better governance, less poverty and better systems in place mean less violence, less conflict, more trade, more engagement and, of course, healthier and happier people right throughout the region.
Do you think that this government understands this? They have cut $11 billion in development assistance on their watch over the last five years—development assistance that is critically important for these goals, for our goals and for our national interest. When our neighbours can thrive, whether it's through their transport, their telecommunications or the energy and water infrastructure that they need, our region is the better for it. We as a nation are the better for it. This goes for development assistance as well as these concessional loans.
We know that these loans will be granted on a commercial basis and must meet what's called an Australian benefit test. We need to help build local capacity to ensure that domestic policy frameworks are embedded so that Australian infrastructure support goes as far as it can. It creates the positive impact that these recipient countries need. Both the major parties have agreed to a Senate legislative committee which will examine the impacts of this bill. Pending this review, the shadow minister for trade, who's here today and sitting right next to me, has foreshadowed that there will be certain amendments that may be needed in the Senate. This is the right step forward.
I'd like to thank the members for their contributions to this debate on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019. I acknowledge the bipartisan support for this important component of the government's strategy for enhancing our engagement with and support for our Pacific neighbours. As the Prime Minister has said, Australia has an abiding interest in a Pacific region that is secure strategically, stable economically and sovereign politically. We remain the largest aid donor to the Pacific. This bill enhances our regional commitment, especially to infrastructure. Better economic infrastructure in the Pacific will contribute to stronger growth not only in individual countries but also across the region, including Australia. Productive and sustainable investment is, therefore, mutually beneficial.
This bill also ensures that Australian companies will have the opportunity to apply their technical expertise, project management experience and innovative solutions to the challenges facing our close friends in the Pacific. This bill provides the certainty required by project proponents, financiers and contractors when undertaking major infrastructure projects. As such, this bill further enhances Australia's place as a valued partner and friend in the Pacific. Finally, the bill allows Efic to operate under the trading name Export Finance Australia, which more clearly describes its role. I commend this important bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
I move:
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 10), after item 4, insert:
4A At the end of section 7
Add:
(4) EFIC must not perform a function, or exercise a power, to the extent that the performance of the function or the exercise of the power relates to a project that involves, or would facilitate, the mining and export of thermal coal on a commercial scale.
(5) Without limiting subsection (4), EFIC must not perform a function, or exercise a power, to the extent that the performance of the function or the exercise of the power relates to:
(a) providing insurance or financial services or products in relation to a project that involves, or would facilitate, the mining and export of thermal coal on a commercial scale; or
(b) encouraging banks, or other financial institutions, carrying on business in Australia to finance, or assist in financing, export contracts or eligible export transactions in relation to a project that involves, or would facilitate, the mining and export of thermal coal on a commercial scale; or
(c) providing information or advice to any person regarding insurance or financial arrangements available to support the export of thermal coal on a commercial scale.
The Greens have a number of concerns about the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019, and they'll be prosecuted further in the Senate. One thing that is obvious about the purpose of this bill is that it is to lay down guidelines, mandates and powers for how Efic operates with respect to companies here and their activities overseas. In that context, nothing could be more important at the moment, especially when we are on the eve of an election, than to deal with Efic's mandate with respect to coal being mined here and exported overseas. It is especially important to deal with that because we know that this government previously, back in 2017, without seeking advice from the department, changed Efic's mandate so that it could start funding coalmining projects. At the very same time banks were retreating, the then minister, of his own volition—perhaps after receiving some request from coalmining companies and donors; we don't know—changed its mandate. He did it all secretly, and it took freedom of information requests to unearth what the minister had done.
We also know that last year various companies and, indeed, Efic took advantage of that revised mandate and had discussions with companies, including Adani and companies that might supply, be engaged with or be related to Adani, about using Australian taxpayers' money to fund a project at the same time they couldn't get finance. That was, one would argue, very clearly in breach of the purpose of Efic, to the extent that it has a purpose—and the Greens have been arguing for some time that there should be some substantial changes to the law. Even the idea that Australian taxpayers' money would go to support the opening up of the Galilee coal basin so that coal could be exported overseas by a company not owned and run in Australia, but by an overseas company, should have sent alarm bells ringing for many people.
There are a number of reasons why it was wrong: the way the minister went about it; the idea that Australian taxpayers' money would be used to fund something that would ultimately benefit an overseas company; and, fundamentally, from the Greens' perspective, the fact that we would be using taxpayers' money to assist the Adani coalmine. That's all reprehensible.
It is not just the Greens who are saying this, and have been for some time. I understand that other political parties, like the Labor Party, have also said that they oppose taxpayers' money going to support the Adani coalmine. In that context, where we know that there has been a relationship between Efic and Adani and people who might play a role in the Adani project, we are not dealing with a mere theoretical issue of where Australian taxpayers' dollars might go but with a very real issue—one that requires amendment to Efic's charter, if you want to call it that, to prohibit Australian taxpayers' money being used with respect to thermal coal projects, and that includes Adani.
As such, I am moving a simple amendment to Efic's powers and functions. Whatever one might think about the rest of the bill—and the Greens may have a different view—it doesn't touch what the rest of the bill does. To the extent that there's clearly an agreement now between the two parties about reforming Efic's mandate, this wouldn't interfere with that. Unless of course the agreement includes a secret nod and a wink with respect to Adani or some other coal companies, this should not be objectionable. This should not be objectionable to the extent that people think it is wrong that Australian taxpayers' money should go to coal. (Time expired)
I'm deeply saddened but not surprised at this predictable action taken by the member for Melbourne. This bill, with bipartisan support, is on a fairly tight time frame to get through the processes of this House and the Senate so that it can be put in place and we can do the good work that this bill, with the support of the majority of members in this House, is designed to do. The actions taken by the member for Melbourne now are unfortunately going to put another bend in that road, making it more difficult for this legislation to pass both houses of this parliament.
I'm also rather disgusted that he is using this bill, which is designed to improve our engagement with our Pacific neighbours and also help improve their lifestyle and future opportunities, to make a cheap political point. It always amazes me that the member for Melbourne, who represents probably one of the most altered electorates in Australia—if you can find a piece of the natural environment in the member for Melbourne's electorate, I would ask you to do so—wants to work against an industry that supplies direct jobs for 53,000 Australians, all in regional areas. We have a bill which is going to help people in our less-prosperous neighbouring countries to become more prosperous in the future, and the elitist Greens member for the seat of Melbourne, from his ivory tower somewhere up in one of those glass castles, is not only stopping this parliament from doing what the majority of its members want it to do but is also attacking the coal industry—our No. 1 export earner, which probably pays for a lot of the services that are supplied to his constituents in Melbourne.
But the changes in the bill—this monstrous conspiracy theory that he talks about—also can go to fund rare earth mines, cobalt mines and lithium mines—all those things, Member for Melbourne, that the electric cars that you are so fond of need. I might add, Member for Melbourne, that you also need coal to build an electric car. That's the hypocrisy of the member for Melbourne in this place. The party that's supposed to stand up for the downtrodden and the battler is now slowing down a bill that's going to help our neighbours in the Pacific and also attacking an industry that employs 53,000 Australians in regional Australia. I oppose his amendments.
If the government is concerned about time, we've got another day of sitting and so there's plenty of time for this to go through. If you're that concerned about time then don't bring a bill on for debate at 10 to seven in the Federation Chamber. Organise your timetable better. Don't blame people for standing up here and doing what the Australian people elected us to, which is to have a debate and move our amendments. If it's that important to you, if somehow you can't get it through in the next day, even though you have bipartisan support, you have well and truly lost control of this parliament. Don't come in here and blame one person for moving one amendment for your utter failure.
The government mention the Pacific. I'll tell you what: a year and a bit ago I was at the world climate negotiations and I sat down—
Mr Coulton interjecting—
I bet the member who interjects hasn't had that many discussions with people from Kiribati or Tonga. Do you know what the No. 1 issue was that the members of the Pacific islands wanted to talk to the Australian delegation about? It was Adani. That was the No. 1 issue. They came to us. They couldn't get an audience with the minister. He wouldn't meet with them. The No. 1 issue that they wanted to raise was Adani. They were pleading with Australian politicians: 'Please do everything you can to stop the Adani coalmine.' For them, the continued mining of coal, the opening up of the Galilee Basin, poses an existential threat to their countries. So do not come in here and have the gall to talk about the welfare of Pacific islanders because, if you had the courtesy to sit down with people from Kiribati or Tuvalu, you would hear them saying, 'We want the Australian government to act on climate change and we do not want the Australian government opening up more and more coalmines.' And I bet they do not want the Australian government using taxpayers' money to do it as well. This government have the gall to pretend that they are somehow interested in advancing the interests of our nearest Pacific islanders at the same time as they are posing an existential threat to them.
Mr Coulton interjecting—
The fact that the government member laughs at this point recalls when Peter Dutton was Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Who can forget that hot-mic moment when he was laughing about members of the Pacific islands not turning up to a meeting on time. 'Who cares about time when the ocean's lapping at your doors?' he said. Maybe the government might like to have a look at what the Pacific islanders are asking us to do before they begin moralising.
They talk about jobs. There are nigh on 70,000 jobs that are dependent on a healthy reef. Are they real jobs or not? If they are real jobs—and I say they are real jobs—then we need to do everything we possibly can to ensure that the reef remains healthy. Ask the former Chief Scientist or any respectable scientist in this area—the No. 1 threat to a healthy reef and the nearly 70,000 jobs that depend on it is global warming. And what is the single biggest contribution to that? Certainly from the perspective of what the Australian government does, it is coal. If you oppose this amendment, you are saying you don't care about the 70,000 jobs that are reliant on a healthy reef and you don't care about our Pacific islander neighbours. You're basically saying, 'We want to give a big tick to the Australian government spending money on a coalmine, on Adani.' You're saying that is okay.
As to all the other things that the government said are important about this bill: you can proceed with all of those and have all of those. I may disagree with you, but you can proceed and have them. All that will be added to it is something that deals with a very urgent and very real threat, which is that the Australian government is doing what it can to give money to support coal. We know that they are bending over backwards to try and do that before the election because they know that an incoming government might have a different approach.
I'll say one final thing—a detail thing. The minister gets up and talks about, 'You need coal to make steel.' The government may not be aware of the difference between thermal and coking coal, but there's a difference between thermal and coking coal. And this amendment applies to thermal coal. So get up and make all the arguments you like about how you need steel—
Member for Melbourne, your time has expired again.
Make all the points you want about how you need steel for electric cars, but maybe you don't understand the difference between thermal and metallurgical coal. This amendment applies to thermal coal. So don't come in here and pretend all of a sudden that you can oppose this on the basis that you care about the Pacific islanders, because the Pacific islanders don't want us to proceed with coal. Don't come in here and pretend this is about jobs in Queensland, because there's near on 70,000 jobs that are threatened by the decline in the reef. And don't come in here and pretend that this is fanciful, because we know that this government, under a veil of secrecy, has changed ethics mandates in the past. And we know that you are busting a gut to write cheques for coal companies before the election. This amendment will stop that.
So I commend this amendment to the House, and I hope that it has the support of enough members of the crossbench, and, indeed, of the opposition, when this comes up, because the rest of your bill will be allowed to sail through but this will stop the government from writing those cheques that we know it wants to write before the federal election.
I thank the member. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I'm going to put the question. Those of that opinion say aye, against no.
Question unresolved.
As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to the bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:57