I present report No. 37 of the Selection Committee relating to consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business for Monday, 15 April 2019. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 2 April 2019.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 15 April 2019, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Mr Shorten: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law to give effect to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry to strengthen consumer protection, and for related purposes. (Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Royal Commission Recommendations Implementation—Enhancing Consumer Protection) Bill 2019)
(Notice given 19 February 2019.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 Mr Shorten: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Corporations Act 2001 to give effect to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry to strengthen AFCA processes, and for related purposes. (Corporations Amendment (Banking Royal Commission Recommendations Implementation—Strengthening AFCA Processes) Bill 2019)
(Notice given 19 February 2019.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 Mr Shorten: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Corporations Act 2001 to give effect to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry to end grandfathering of commissions in financial advice, and for related purposes. (Corporations Amendment (Banking Royal Commission Recommendations Implementation—Ending Grandfathered Commissions) Bill 2019)
(Notice given 19 February 2019.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
Orders of the day
1 ASIC: Resumption of debate (from 20 August 2018) on the motion of Mr Robert—That this House:
(1) notes the appointment of the new Deputy Chair of ASIC, Mr Daniel Crennan QC;
(2) further notes that the Government invested in ASIC to give it the tools it needs to be a tough cop on the beat including:
(a) the introduction of an industry funding model to secure ASIC's funding base;
(b) a new product intervention power to enable ASIC to intervene in the sale of harmful products to retail customers; and
(c) legislating to:
(i) remove ASIC employees from the Public Service Act 1999 to enhance ASIC's ability to attract and retain the best staff, and
(ii) include competition considerations within ASIC's mandate;
(3) notes Mr Crennan's appointment builds on the reforms to strengthen criminal and civil penalties for corporate misconduct; and
(4) further notes that this appointment boosts the powers of ASIC to protect Australian consumers from corporate and financial misconduct.
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Funding for public schools: Resumption of debate (from 18 February 2019) on the motion of Ms Ryan—That this House:
(1) acknowledges that our public schools are at the heart of our education system;
(2) notes that:
(a) public schools teach two in three of all school students, and the overwhelming majority of Australia's neediest children, including:
(i) 82 per cent of the poorest children;
(ii) 84 per cent of Indigenous children; and
(iii) 74 per cent of children with disabilities;
(b) under the current Government, almost nine in ten (88 per cent) of public schools will never get to their fair funding level because the Government has capped federal funding for public schools at just 20 per cent of the Schools Recommendation Scheme;
(c) after spending a year trying to deny there were cuts, the fact the Government has restored funding to Catholic and independent schools was finally an admission that it is cutting billions of dollars from schools;
(d) Labor has announced a plan to restore funding to public schools; and
(e) Labor's plan will transform public schools across Australia and give all children the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter where they live, or what amount their parents earn; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) immediately adopt Labor's plan to restore funding to public schools to ensure every public school reaches its fair funding level; and
(b) work with school systems to get every school to its fair funding level.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Orders of the day
1 Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 (Mr Shorten): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from3December2018).
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 M ental health : Resumption of debate (from 10 September 2018) on the motion of Mr Wallace—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures one in five Australians report having a mental or behavioural condition, while the prevalence is highest among people aged 18 to 24; and
(b) data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare suggests that 54 per cent of people with a mental illness do not access treatment;
(2) congratulates the Government for its engagement with the mental health community and for its measures to support mental health in Australia including:
(a) additional investment of $170 million in mental health programs in the 2017 budget including $80 million to maintain community psycho-social services for people with mental illness who are not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, $11.1 million to prevent suicide in specific locations where it is a frequent occurrence, $15 million to support mental health research initiatives such as the Thompson Institute on the Sunshine Coast and $50 million for mental illness prevention and support for serving Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families; and
(b) investment of:
(i) $9.5 million to expand mental health first aid training in 14 high risk communities; and
(ii) $9.1 million to support rural telehealth services for mental health and the appointment of the first National Rural Health Commissioner;
(3) encourages the Government to continue this focused work and to seek additional ways to support the mental health of Australians; and
(4) further encourages anyone who believes that they might be suffering from a mental illness to seek immediate help from their General Practitioner or a qualified mental health practitioner.
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Preschool/kindy funding: Resumption of debate (from 3 December 2018) on the motion of Ms Claydon—That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) 90 per cent of the brain develops before the age of five;
(b) nearly one in four Australian children—22 per cent—start school without the foundational skills to be successful learners; and
(c) those children who are missing out on early education are children from disadvantaged backgrounds and are the ones who would benefit most from a preschool program;
(2) agrees that:
(a) according to the Lifting our Game report prepared by early education experts for state and territory education ministers, two years of preschool is a key recommendation to achieving educational excellence in Australia; and
(b) age appropriate early learning programs have been proven to have a positive impact on children's outcomes through school;
(3) notes that:
(a) the Government has left parents and providers in limbo with its refusal to provide funding certainty;
(b) without ongoing funding to four year old preschool/kindy, providers are unable to plan ahead;
(c) since Labor introduced Universal Access to Early Childhood Education in 2008, preschool enrolment for four year olds has increased from 77 per cent to 93 per cent; and
(d) the Government's lack of commitment has left us falling behind other OECD countries in early education; and
(4) calls on the Government to properly fund four year old preschool/kindy and follow Labor's commitment to provide ongoing funding to four year olds and extend this to three year olds.
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 Infrastructure: Resumption of debate (from 10 September 2018) on the motion of Mrs Marino—That this House:
(1) recognises the importance of infrastructure to the future prosperity of our nation;
(2) acknowledges the actions the Government is taking in delivering a record $75 billion investment in infrastructure and transport projects focused on building local communities, connecting the regions and our cities, busting congestion and boosting productivity, while creating local jobs;
(3) notes that for the first time, the Government has committed to a 10 year infrastructure investment pipeline with the recently announced significant infrastructure projects; and
(4) congratulates the Government in working to deliver the infrastructure that will help secure Australia's prosperity into the future.
And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr Albanese, vizThat all words after paragraph (1) be omitted and the following be inserted:
(2) condemns the Government for cutting infrastructure investment from $8 billion in 2017-18 to $4.5 billion in 2021-22;
(3) notes research from the Parliamentary Budget Office which has found Commonwealth investment will fall from 0.4 to 0.2 per cent of GDP over the next decade;
(4) condemns the Government for its incompetence in underspending by $4.7 billion on its own infrastructure investment commitments in its first four budgets;
(5) notes that off budget financing of public transport projects is misleading; and
(6) condemns the Government for failing to deliver investment to construct the Melbourne airport rail line, Western Sydney rail or Brisbane cross-river rail project.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Orders of the day—continued
Funding for public schools: Debate to be resumed on the motion of Ms Ryan—That this House:
(1) acknowledges that our public schools are at the heart of our education system;
(2) notes that:
(a) public schools teach two in three of all school students, and the overwhelming majority of Australia's neediest children, including:
(i) 82 per cent of the poorest children;
(ii) 84 per cent of Indigenous children; and
(iii) 74 per cent of children with disabilities;
(b) under the current Government, almost nine in ten (88 per cent) of public schools will never get to their fair funding level because the Government has capped federal funding for public schools at just 20 per cent of the Schools Recommendation Scheme;
(c) after spending a year trying to deny there were cuts, the fact the Government has restored funding to Catholic and independent schools was finally an admission that it is cutting billions of dollars from schools;
(d) Labor has announced a plan to restore funding to public schools; and
(e) Labor's plan will transform public schools across Australia and give all children the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter where they live, or what amount their parents earn; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) immediately adopt Labor's plan to restore funding to public schools to ensure every public school reaches its fair funding level; and
(b) work with school systems to get every school to its fair funding level.
Time allotted—45 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 Farm Household Allowance: Resumption of debate (from 10 September 2018) on the motion of Mr Gee—That this House:
(1) notes that a significant part of rural Australia is currently drought declared;
(2) further notes that farming families and the agriculture sector more widely are a vital part of the Australian economy as well as the Australian psyche;
(3) recognises the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources for their efforts in touring drought declared areas in NSW and Queensland;
(4) congratulates the Government for deciding to extend the Farm Household Allowance from three years to four years; and
(5) acknowledges that this assistance will help the nation's farmers.
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices
1 Ms Sharkie: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) craft distillers:
(i) make an increasingly important contribution to the Australian economy; and
(ii) are a significant tourism attraction and have a significant multiplier effect on the wider economy, particularly in rural and regional areas;
(b) the excise regime faced by craft distillers is excessively complex, burdensome, and is a major obstacle for smaller operators;
(c) the timing of excise payments can have a negative effect upon cashflow for start-up craft distillers; and
(d) the levying of excise payments on tastings and samples is limiting opportunities for tourism, export, and growth; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) take steps to reduce the tax complexity and barriers to growth faced by craft distillers;
(b) assess the effect that the timing of excise payments has on cash flow for smaller businesses and the resultant influence this has on growth;
(c) target the excise refund scheme more effectively towards craft distillers; and
(d) consider the removal of excise payments on samples and tastings.
(Notice given 27 November 2018)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Sharkie—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day—continued
6 Agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors: Resumption of debate (from 17 September 2018) on the motion of Mr Joyce—That this House:
(1) commends the hard working men and women of Australia's farms and rural industry;
(2) notes that Australia's total farm production is worth $62.3 billion in 2016-17, which is up almost 30 per cent since the Government came to office;
(3) notes that the value of agricultural exports is $49 billion in 2016-17, which is up 28 per cent since the Government came to office;
(4) notes the contribution of agriculture, forestry and fishing sector's to Australia's economy is $45.7 billion in 2016-17, which is up 9 per cent since the Government came to office;
(5) commends the Government for its investment in Australian agriculture to create jobs and prosperity in rural communities; and
(6) stands with farmers across Australia facing severe hardship as a result of drought and recognises the Government's drought assistance measures.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1)notes that:
(a)after six years of cuts and chaos under this Liberal Government, Australians are doing it tough;
(b)in last night's Budget, the Treasurer delivered an energy payment which left out thousands of Australians who rely on Government payments, including: ABSTUDY, Austudy, Double Orphan Pension, Newstart Allowance, Parenting Payment Partnered, Partner Allowance, Sickness Allowance, Special Benefit, Widow Allowance, Wife Pension, Youth Allowance and Veteran Payment;
(c)on radio this morning, less than 24 hours after he delivered his Budget, the Treasurer caved into pressure from Labor and backflipped, saying that Australians on Newstart would now receive an energy payment;
(d)in just a few minutes, the Government will introduce legislation that now extends the payment to all the people that the Government had previously left out in its Budget;
(e)the Government's backflip has already blown an $80 million hole in the Budget; and
(f)the Government's Budget is unravelling less than 24 hours after it was delivered; and
(2)therefore, condemns this government for:
(a)six years of cuts and chaos, which has only continued in the last 24 hours; and
(b)only looking after the top end of town and treating vulnerable Australians as an afterthought.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for McMahon moving the following motion immediately:
That the House notes that:
(1) after six years of cuts and chaos under this Liberal government, Australia is doing it tough;
(b) in last night's budget, the Treasurer delivered an energy payment which left out thousands of Australians who rely on government payments, including Abstudy, Austudy, double orphan pension, Newstart allowance, parenting payment partnered, partner allowance, sickness allowance, special benefit, widow allowance, wife pension, youth allowance and veteran payment;
(c) on radio this morning, less than 24 hours after he delivered his budget, the Treasurer caved in to pressure from Labor and back flipped, saying that Australians on Newstart will now receive the energy supplement;
(d) in just a few minutes, the government will introduce legislation that now extends the payment to all the people the government had previously left out in its budget;
(e) the government's backflip has already blown an $80 million hole in the budget; and
(f) the government's budget is unravelling less than 24 hours after it was delivered; and
(2) therefore condemns this government for:
(a) six years of cuts and chaos, which has only continued in the last 24 hours; and
(b) only looking after the top end of town and treating vulnerable Australians as an afterthought.
Mr Speaker, I've seen some budgets unravel in my time—as you would have in your time here in this House, Mr Speaker—but never before have I seen a budget unravel quite as spectacularly or quickly as this.
I have a copy of the budget here. The ink is a bit smudgy, because the ink is still wet—the ink is not dry on the budget—but it is nevertheless my copy. It says at page 159 of Budget Paper No. 2 that the government will provide $284 million over two years to make a one-off energy assistance payment of $75 for singles and $62.50 for each member of a couple. The budget makes it clear that the qualifying payments are the age pension, the carer payment, the disability support pension—and it goes on. I'll tell you what doesn't appear in the budget delivered last night, a little over 12 hours ago, by the Treasurer. The budget doesn't say Newstart, nor does it say Abstudy or Austudy. This is the explanatory memorandum of a bill that will be introduced to the parliament in a few moments time and it says it will pay a one-off energy assistance payment to recipients of the age pension, the disability support pension, Abstudy, Austudy and Newstart allowance and it says the cost is $365 million over the forward estimates. Last night it was $287. Now it is $365 million. I've heard of inflation, but it is a bit ridiculous. That inflation rate is Venezuelan in its proportions. If that is the budget blowout over the last 12 hours, if they can't keep the budget until the next morning of parliament, God knows what the budget will be like in 2024 when they are promising tax cuts.
They simply forgot some of Australia's most vulnerable people. The Treasurer likes to quote two people. There are two major people he likes to quote—himself, in his main speech, and Robert Menzies, his predecessor as the member for Kooyong. He takes photo shoots next to a polished bust of Robert Menzies and he quotes 'The Forgotten People'. Well, this member of Kooyong has forgotten people as well; he forgot the recipients of Newstart and Austudy and Abstudy. This is a Treasurer who has forgotten the most vulnerable people in Australia. This energy supplement is no small thing. It was the centrepiece of their budget drop on Sunday. It was on the front page of various newspapers around the country as their big pitch for Australians. 'They have learnt the lessons of the last six years of cuts and chaos'—that was their pitch. 'Forget about the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years; they didn't happen. 'Look at this budget.' The energy supplement was on the front page of the papers, so proud were they of it. They just got it wrong and forgot Australians on Newstart, Austudy, Abstudy and other important payments such as the double orphan pension. These aren't people who you would regard as the top end of town that you are considering whether support is necessary for; these are people who really need the energy supplement. Senator Sinodinos was on Q&A earlier in the week arguing for an increase in Newstart 'if only he knew someone who could do something about it'—but he is a member of a government that can do something about it. But here we have this big reset of the government's narrative and it is falling apart before our eyes.
I have here the budget papers that were printed less than 24 hours ago. I have some advice for the Treasurer. Next time, put the budget in a ring binder and then you can just take pages out. You can bring it in here and table the latest update on an hourly basis!
Post-it notes!
I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. You could put post-it notes on it; you could have post-it note updates to the budget as well; that's another way of dealing with it. The other budget blowout is the cost of pulping the budget. That is going to cost a bit of money. Down the shredder it will go; there will be no shredder in Canberra left turned off over the next 24 hours as they shred the budget and start again! In all seriousness, this says it all about this budget. I confess to the House that I was ready, in my media performances last night and today, to say that there might be some good things in this budget, there might be some changes in this budget, but this won't mean that Australians forget the six years of cuts and chaos. I confess that I had to change my response. I can't say that anymore, because this budget is about cuts and chaos. This budget is about chaos writ large!
Here we have a government which is so chaotic that they have, as the centrepiece of their budget, the energy supplement. This is their big message to Australians: 'We've learnt the lessons. No more cuts under us; no more chaos under us. We've learnt it all; we're all fixed. We're better people than that bad Abbott and that bad Turnbull! Just forget about them.' So chaotic are they that they bugger up the cuts; so chaotic are they that they can't get it right.
Really, Australia deserves better than this. Australia deserves a government which has actually thought about its policies. Australia deserves a government which has a plan for the country. Australia deserves a government which actually recognises that we need to lift people up, that we need to bring people with us on the 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth. We actually need to support those Australians doing it tough, including Australians on Newstart and other payments. We actually need a government for which Australians doing it tough are not an afterthought.
And there's another afterthought in this budget. It's not just about the energy supplement; there's another problem in this budget. What's their other big pitch? 'Oh, we've got double tax cuts,' they say, 'We finally acknowledged that the Labor Party was right 12 months ago when the Leader of the Opposition announced bigger, better tax cuts in his budget reply.' They've caught up with us on bigger, better tax cuts. We welcome that, 326 days too late—
Unbelievable!
It's 326 days too late! Look it up on the internet, Stewie, you might learn something! It's 326 days too late and they still get it wrong! They still get it wrong because they've forgotten some other Australians as well: the more than two million Australians earning $40,000 or less who are better off under our plan.
There's a theme. I detect a theme emerging. I'm just a simple boy from Smithfield, but I detect a theme. The theme is that those Australians who need the support most miss out. Those Australians earning less than $40,000 miss out on the double tax cuts. They get some tax relief, but not as much as those who earn more.
And what of the Australians who earn less than $40,000 a year, many of whom work on Sundays and who have had their penalty rates cut and many of whom are female workers? Many of them are the gender pay gap in daily operation. They're doing their jobs, working hard on Sundays, but are earning low pay and dealing with low wages growth and their penalty rate cuts. And what do they get from this government? An insult of a tax cut! It's an insult because the tax cut is not double what Labor offered last year—nowhere near it.
And then you get the insult that Newstart recipients and Austudy and Abstudy recipients and living allowance recipients are an afterthought. 'Oops!' said the Treasurer this morning. The Labor Party has pointed out that they don't receive the payment. We received advice that we could not move an amendment to put them in. Constitutionally we did not have the power, but we moved a second reading amendment to point out the error of their ways. The government got the second reading amendment and said: 'Oh, dear. That's embarrassing. Whoopsie! We forgot Newstart recipients.' Well, here's a tip for the Treasurer: get your work right in the first place and your budget might not disappear on day 2.
The Prime Minister and Treasurer went out today talking about the budget. What was their line on their budget, their big vision for the country? It was, 'Labor, Shorten, Bowen, Labor, Shorten, Labor.' That was their big defence of their budget! It's no wonder, because their budget is a piece of nonsense.
Is the motion seconded?
I have great pleasure in seconding this motion. The Treasurer is no Angus Young, and AC/DC would be absolutely mortified that they use that song! Not only do we have cuts, not only do we have chaos, but we actually have confusion, and the new thing is that we have copycats. We have copycats! Yesterday, when I circulated a second reading amendment for this bill to the crossbench proposing the government should expand the payment to those on Newstart, youth allowance and other payments, I never in my wildest dreams anticipated it would be so successful so quickly. Labor called on the government to extend the one-off payment to other people on means-tested income support, including Abstudy, Austudy, double orphan payments, Newstart allowance, parenting payments, partner allowance, sickness allowance, special benefits, widow allowance, wife pension, youth allowance and veterans payments. That's quite a lot to forget, don't you think?
But it seems that even the Treasurer was taken by surprise. When asked directly on 9 News last night about extending the payment to people on Newstart, he didn't say yes. This is what the Treasurer said: 'Well, Newstart does go up twice a year, when it is indexed. But, importantly, the majority of people on Newstart move off Newstart within 12 months. They hopefully go into work, and many have been doing that.' But it was a totally different script this morning. The Treasurer this morning told ABC, 'Well, a couple of things. Firstly, the energy supplement will be extended to people on Newstart.' That was a change from last night. Sabra Lane then asked, 'It will be?' and the Treasurer said 'It will be.' That's a bit of a change. How quickly things have unravelled—the unravelled budget. It is chaos, it is confusion and now you are copycats. It is a desperate tone from a desperate government and Australia will see through it. Seventy-five dollars, six weeks out from an election, will not undo six years of cuts and cruelty. Labor moved to see this payment extended because there is no good reason for people on these payments to be excluded.
Finally, within a bit more than 12 hours—not 24 and not 48—the government realised that they had forgotten quite a few people on several payments. These people face the same costs of living and in many cases they are in fact on lower payments, yet you, in your cruelty, forgot to add them into the energy payment. While Labor supports this payment, make no mistake that after six years of chaos and cruel cuts the Australian people will see right through this cynical and desperate attempt from this government to save its own skin. That's what this is about—saving your own skin. This government must take the Australian people for fools. Well, they are not fools. This incompetence—the fact that within 12 hours there has been a complete unravelling of this budget. There is an $80 million black hole. We are seeing the stature of this government.
While I am on my feet, let me address one other thing: the NDIS underspend. Let us remember that this is about building a surplus on the back of people with disability—$1.6 billion off people who can't use their plans; $1.6 billion off people on disability, people who are disabled. You are building a surplus on that. How cynical. How outrageous. Do you really think people with disability, their advocates and the broader Australian community are going to cop that rubbish? No, they will not. I think we are seeing that very clearly this morning. We are seeing a government that forgot a whole bunch of people and this morning is copying what Labor was going to do. It is just a cynical, outrageous act from this government. The bottom line is that Australians with disability are the ones who are going to pay for Prime Minister Morrison to bolster—
Thank you for the opportunity to rise to speak on this motion. It was very interesting to hear the shadow minister stand up and speak, because before the Labor national conference late last year the shadow minister was busy seeking to give you the impression that she was going to secure a commitment for an increase in Newstart. There she was, out there revving up the stakeholders. There were all kinds of expectations from the shadow minister that she was going to deliver an outcome on Newstart. And didn't she get those expectations revved up. But I'll tell you what: ACOSS were very unhappy with the shadow minister by the end of the Labor national conference at the end of last year, because, after all of those expectations that the shadow minister was keen to rev up with the stakeholders about the increase she was going to deliver in Newstart, what did she deliver at the end of the Labor national conference?
She delivered nothing.
Do you know what Labor's policy on Newstart is? I'll tell you what Labor's policy on Newstart is. Labor's policy is to have a review. Bravely, Labor are going to hit the beach reviewing! We saw in it the years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government: review after review after review. But now the brave new policy from the opposition is that they're going to have a review into Newstart.
You're either fair dinkum or you're not. The numbers are either in your budget or they're not. And you haven't put the numbers in your budget. Labor are walking two sides of the street when it comes to Newstart. Labor like to give out the rhetoric when it comes to Newstart, but what's their promise? Their promise is to have a review. This is classic modern Labor. This is classic Labor. They want to give the impression that they're going to be doing something on Newstart, but they have not committed to do anything more than to have a review. Indeed, what was it that ACOSS said at the end of last year? ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, had this to say about Labor and their discussions of Newstart at the national conference at the end of last year:
ACOSS urges Labor to improve disgracefully inadequate Newstart motion at the ALP Conference …
This is Labor. This is Labor trying to tell a story on Newstart, but the reality is that all they're doing is committing to a review. They have not committed to do anything more than a review.
The shadow Treasurer is desperate to try and mount some kind of attack against a budget which offers a lower taxing future for Australians, which offers a return to surplus, the first time in 12 years—back in black and back on track. That's something that you're never going to see delivered from Labor. Labor simply does not have the capability or the track record of delivering a surplus. He was desperate to make the claim that in some way this was some kind of material change to the budget.
Let's be clear: this is a payment being made in 2018-19. The total cost of the measure that we will be introducing, with legislation to be introduced shortly—and I hope and expect that Labor will be supporting it—is $365 million, almost entirely delivered in the 2018-19 financial year. I make that point again because it is a very important point: almost entirely delivered in the 2018-19 financial year. Despite the shadow Treasurer's attempt to make the argument that this is in some way any kind of change to the budget, the fact is that this is a payment in 2018-19, an incremental change. It's a change that we're pleased to be making. We'll be introducing that legislation very shortly, and I certainly look forward to Labor supporting this. I hope and expect that that is what we will see.
But it's important to look at the question of how best we deal with Australians in poverty. We are very clear on this side of the House that the best way to deal with poverty is to get as many Australians into a job as possible. That is why we have been so focused on delivering almost 1.3 million jobs since we came to government in 2013. We committed that we'd deliver one million; we have well exceeded that commitment, and of course we've now committed to deliver further jobs. That's a commitment made by the Treasurer in the budget last night.
Very importantly, there are now 230,000 fewer Australians of working age—between 16 and 64—who are on the welfare rolls. The percentage of working-age Australians who are on income support payments, now at 14.3 per cent, is at the lowest level it has been in 30 years. Every Australian who moves from welfare to work secures a personal victory—a victory in terms of self-esteem, a victory in terms of a sense of contribution, a victory, of course, in terms of an improved financial position for themselves and their families. We are very firmly focused on our policy of encouraging and assisting Australians to move from welfare into work. You do that by growing the economy. You do that by generating jobs. You do that by introducing measures which stimulate the businesses who employ Australians. Ninety per cent of jobs are in the private sector. That means it is vital to encourage businesses to invest and employ. That's why we've delivered tax reductions for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. We've reduced the corporate tax rate from 30 per cent to 25 per cent so that more Australians will be employed. That's why we've committed to spending $75 billion—now increased to $100 billion—on infrastructure, because that is the way that you encourage investment and you encourage employment. It's why we have delivered free trade agreements with China, with Japan, with Korea, with Singapore, with Indonesia. These free trade agreements are about creating more export opportunities, more opportunities for business, more economic growth and, therefore, more employment. In the budget last night we saw a clear and continued focus on lower taxes and stimulating business activity, and, in turn, employment. That is the way we deal with poverty in this country. That is the way we encourage more Australians to get into the workforce. That is the way we assist people to make that transition from welfare to work. Every Australian who makes the transition from welfare to work achieves a personal victory.
It was very instructive to see the way that the shadow Treasurer sought to jump on this issue. Labor know that they are walking two sides of the street on Newstart. Labor know very well that they are claiming to deliver something when, in fact, they have not committed anything in terms of what they're actually going to spend on Newstart. If Labor were fair dinkum about, for example, responding to the ACOSS proposal of $75 a week—that's $3.3 billion a year in additional expenditure. What the shadow Treasurer needs to do is come clean with the Australian people: are you committing to spending an extra $3.3 billion a year? That is what you need to come clean about with the Australian people. You're busy talking about Newstart, but what you have not done is told the Australian people whether you are prepared to commit to $3.3 billion in additional expenditure each year. And what you have not done is told the Australian people, if they do have to find that additional $3.3 billion, how that is going to be paid for. So Labor is walking two sides of the street on Newstart. We have a very clear position about assisting Australians out of welfare into work.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.
For the information of members, that was our first division counted electronically by iPads. So that's a little bit of history for the House.
Before I call the member for Fenner, I'd ask those standing in the aisles if they could show some respect and go outside to finish their conversations. Thank you.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Only two days to go, Craig.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for clearing the House of those not focused on the important issue of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2019! Labor will support the bill as we do each year. It is a bill which amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase: the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families, along with the dependent child/student component of the family threshold, in line with movements in the consumer price index; the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families eligible for the SAPTO, along with the dependent child/student component of the family threshold, in line with movements in the CPI; and the Medicare levy surcharge low-income threshold in line with movements in the CPI. It applies to the 2018-19 income year and subsequent years. That follows the practice of doing so annually to ensure the most vulnerable Australians aren't disadvantaged, while maintaining their access to our world-class universal healthcare system.
I want to make a few points as we're looking at the issue of Medicare and the impact on our health system. As my colleague the member for Ballarat, who is in the chamber, noted this morning, the 2019-20 budget has locked in the Prime Minister's cuts to public hospitals in a too-little too-late health budget full of reheated announcements that don't make up for six years of Liberal chaos. As Treasurer, the Prime Minister cut hospitals in every budget he wrote, and as Prime Minister he's locked them in.
For six years the Liberals have prioritised an $80 billion tax handout for the top end of town over Medicare, schools and hospitals. The Prime Minister has refused to restore the $715 million he cut from hospitals under the current funding period. He's persisting with his plan to rip billions more out of hospitals over the next six years. Patients will suffer because the cuts will lead to longer emergency department and elective surgery waiting times and force them to travel further for treatment. Only Labor will deliver a fair go for Australia by reversing these cuts and making massive new investments, with our $2.8 billion Better Hospitals Fund.
While we always welcome new investments in general practice, this budget doesn't come close to making up for the five-year rebate freeze that has ripped $3 billion out of Medicare. This is a freeze that the Liberals first imposed in 2014, and now they are promising to lift it to match Labor's long-held commitment a mere six weeks out from election.
The Australian people, who have had to put up with increasing out-of-pocket costs and long wait times, are too smart to fall for their spin. They know the cost of going to the doctor has risen. They know they're waiting longer than they should for elective and emergency surgery, and that's why many of them have been delaying going to the doctor. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that one million Australians delay or avoid seeing their GP every year due to cost. Another 1.7 million Australians skip specialist appointments, yet we have this laughable claim that Medicare has 'never been stronger' and that their commitment to Medicare is 'rock solid'. The track record is that the Liberals cannot be trusted with health. Whether it is making Medicare more expensive, cutting public hospitals or putting private health insurance profits before patients, Prime Minister Morrison cannot be trusted on health. Labor created Medicare and only Labor will ensure Australians can access the health care they deserve.
We support this bill, which is largely a product of convention rather than passion on the part of those opposite. But the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government poses an existential threat to our valued and cherished universal health care system. Only Labor will protect Medicare.
I thank those members who have contributed to the debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2019 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners in line with increases in the consumer price index. For individual taxpayers, no Medicare levy will be payable for those with taxable income that does not exceed $22,398 in 2018-19. Single seniors and pensioners with no dependants who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners offset will not incur a Medicare levy liability if their taxable income does not exceed $35,418 in 2018-19.
As well as these individual thresholds, further relief is available for low-income couples and families. Couples and families not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy for 2018-19 if their combined income does not exceed $37,794 plus $3,471 for each dependent child or student. Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy for 2018-19 if their combined taxable income does not exceed $49,304 plus $3,471 for each dependent child or student. The amendments to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds apply to the 2018-19 year of income and future income years. Full details of the measure in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of changes in membership of certain joint committees.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019, will enable a one-off energy assistance payment to all pension, allowance and veteran payment recipients residing in Australia on 2 April 2019 to assist them with their energy costs. The energy assistance payment will be $75 for singles and $62.50 for each eligible member of a couple. The government are able to deliver this assistance because our responsible budget management allows us to guarantee the essential services Australians rely on.
The measure to make the energy assistance payment builds on a 2017-18 budget measure to make a one-off assistance payment to certain income support recipients and extends the payment to all income support recipients. It also follows on from the government's announcement, confirmed in the 2018-19 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, that the energy supplement will continue for new income support recipients. Determining eligibility for this one-off payment is simple. You must be in receipt of one of the qualifying payments and be residing in Australia on 2 April 2019. Those qualified will automatically receive the payment through the Department of Human Services or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. They will not need to take any action. No claim is necessary. The payment will not be taxed and will not reduce their rate of income support. Those people who have made a claim for payment on or before 2 April 2019 and whose claims are subsequently granted will also be paid the one-off payment.
This legislation ensures that a person cannot receive more than one entitlement and no payment will be made to non-Australian residents as they are not subject to energy prices in Australia. People who are not in receipt of a payment because they are suspended on the test date will not be immediately eligible. Those whose payments are subsequently restored through a period covering 2 April 2019 will receive the payment. Anyone who is paid the 2019 one-off energy assistance payment and who subsequently becomes ineligible for their qualifying income support payment on the test date—for example, through a review of a decision—will not have to pay it back except in limited circumstances, such as fraud.
The payment will help approximately five million income support recipients and veterans. The total cost of this payment will be around $365 million. The energy assistance payment will be paid automatically to most eligible recipients by the end of June 2019.
Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.
We have just had a motion in the House pointing out clearly just how incompetent or cynical—I can't decide which one—this government has been in relation to this energy payment that was announced in the budget last night by the Treasurer to apply to certain people on welfare payments but with the bulk of people on payments, including people who are on Newstart, not being eligible. Within the course of just over 12 hours, the government has had another look at this—and I would love to be a fly on the wall at the department at the moment; that would be an interesting exercise—to see whether to include people on Abstudy, Austudy, double orphan pension, Newstart allowance, parenting payment, partner allowance, sickness allowance, special benefit, widow allowance, wife pension, youth allowance or veteran payment. But most significant, as I said, is the Newstart allowance. It is a very cruel thing that the budget that was announced last night did not include these categories of people on various welfare payments.
It behoves me to point out to the House just what the history of this government has been in terms of the energy supplement. The energy supplement is something that has been attacked by this government over a long period of time. For 834 days, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million pensioners, as well as for recipients of Newstart, youth allowance and other payments, by scrapping the energy supplement. Now we see, six weeks out from an election, a one-off payment of $75, and slightly more for other recipients of the energy supplement—a one-off payment. That is not an excuse for the lack of an energy policy; it is a simple, cynical exercise, six weeks out from an election.
But the fundamental point to make to this House and to make clear today is that this government has a long history in opposing and trying to scrap the energy supplement. The energy supplement was designed to help vulnerable Australians with the cost of power bills. Scott Morrison's plan would have cost a single pensioner $14.10 per fortnight or around $365 a year and would have cut $21.20 a fortnight or around $550 a year from couple pensioners. This wasn't a plan for a one-off cut but for a cut every fortnight, every year. And Labor opposed these cuts and committed to reverse them. It is important that we remind the House of this government's record on the energy supplement.
What we saw in the budget the Treasurer announced last night was the complete abrogation of looking after the most vulnerable in our community, and the leaving out of enormous swathes of those who are doing it very, very hard. Then the Labor Party's amendment was circulated. And, magically, by 7.30 this morning, the government had adopted that amendment. They had seen that they had made an enormous mistake—through cynicism or incompetence—and, surprisingly, they added Newstart and other payments to the one-off energy supplement.
I will reiterate what I said earlier. On 9News last night, the Treasurer, when he was asked directly about extending the payment to people on Newstart, didn't say yes. I remind people that this is what he said: 'Well, Newstart does go up twice a year. It's indexed. But, importantly, the majority of people on Newstart move to another payment or move off Newstart within 12 months. They hopefully go into work, and many have been doing that.' It was a very different script this morning, wasn't it, everyone? The Treasurer told ABC Radio:
Well, a couple of things. Firstly, the energy supplement will be extended to people on Newstart.
And Sabra Lane said: 'It will be?' and Josh Frydenberg said: 'It will be.' So there is an enormous difference between what the Treasurer presented to this House and the nation last night and what has been brought in by this Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019, the second reading of which we are debating.
I also think it's really important to point out to this House that not only has there been an enormous slip-up, an extraordinary mistake, made by the government in not including the groups of people that I've mentioned, including people on Newstart, in the one-off energy supplement—the budget last night did not include those people, and, by 7.30 this morning, of course, they'd been included—but also we cannot ignore the fact that there has been a huge NDIS underspend. In fact we are looking at something like $1.6 billion of underspend towards the budget bottom line in terms of people with disability. I think this is an absolute disgrace, and there is no other way to describe it; it is an absolute disgrace.
Over five years, the government has not had the capacity to roll out the NDIS. There have been five ministers in five years, and it seems to me that none of those ministers has actually committed themselves or got their head around some of the issues with the NDIS. And the fact that there would be the cynical move to use $1.6 billion in underspend, intended for people who are eligible and deserving of those finances, to prop up the projected budget 'surplus' is a disgrace. It is not an achievement. That is the only way I can describe it.
Let us not forget that this government has an enormous history in trying to cut the age pension. Pensioners will never forget that in every single budget the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has tried, time and time again, to cut the age pension. In 2013 Prime Minister Abbott promised that there would be no cuts to the pension, and yet in 2014 the Liberals tried to cut pension indexation, a cut that would have meant pensioners would have been forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. In that very same 2014 horror budget—and we will never forget it—the Liberals slashed $1 billion from pensioner concessions, supports designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. In 2015 the Liberals did a deal with the Greens political party to cut the pension to 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. In 2016 the Liberals tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. For over three years the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has refused to review and adjust the deeming rates, while the Reserve Bank cash rate has fallen from 2.25 per cent in February 2015 to 1.50 per cent today. For two years the Liberals planned to scrap the energy supplement, cutting the age pension to 1.5 million pensioners, and for four years the Liberals tried to raise the pension age to 70. Labor has fought each and every one of these cuts to the age pension—tooth and nail.
I will finish up my comments by saying that, try as they may, the government can't gloss over their gaping lack of energy policy with the energy support payment—the one that they're trying to rectify. They will have to admit there has been a massive mistake made in the budget that was presented by the Treasurer last night. After six years they continue to be at each other's throats over energy policy. Thirteen energy policies over six years! The Liberal coalition government are more interested in tackling each other than tackling climate change or energy prices. Since the Liberals formed government in 2013, wholesale energy prices have doubled. In contrast, Labor has a comprehensive plan to boost renewable energy and put downward pressure on prices. We do have an energy policy.
In closing, I go back to where I started. There was a massive, cynical, incompetent, political—call it what you want—mistake made in the Treasurer's presentation of the budget last night in terms of the one-off energy payment. They forgot Newstart, youth allowance, Austudy, double-orphan pension, parenting partnered payments, partner allowance, special benefits—the list goes on. I have read them into Hansard. And then, magically, the Treasurer is admitting that people on Newstart will be included in the energy supplement. I say to this government: it is cynicism unbridled, and the Australian people will not be fooled by what has taken place in this budget over the last 12 hours.
Remember how the government promised that by scrapping the carbon tax we would reduce our energy bills? I remember. Remember how the Minister for the Environment and Energy promised to deliver a $550-a-year saving on all of our energy bills when they were going to pass the NEG, the National Energy Guarantee?
And then, of course, the government decided to pull their own legislation, and we got nowhere with that. So many broken promises! I have always been happy to work constructively with government on energy policy and any other policy that they bring to this chamber. But really, with respect to energy, they haven't given us much to work with.
Back in 2017, my Centre Alliance colleagues and I negotiated a one-off energy assistance payment as a stopgap measure to help some of the most vulnerable in our community manage to get through that winter, on the promise that there was going to be that $550 saving. Of course, we never saw the saving. We did get that energy supplement through—and, remember, at the time, the government were also looking to scrap the fortnightly energy supplement that goes to many welfare recipients. They wanted to scrap that for new ones because we didn't have a carbon tax. That didn't bring into mind the fact that energy bills were rising despite that.
As part of our negotiations then, an estimated 3.8 million Australians obtained relief for their energy bills with a one-off payment of $75 for singles and $125 for pensioners. At that time I was, as I am now, particularly concerned about households that are on low, fixed incomes and for whom full-time work or part-time work is not a realistic option. These are people who receive the age pension, the disability support pension, parenting payment single and various veterans payments.
Now the government admits that the temporary stopgap measure originally negotiated by Centre Alliance must become a temporarily permanent-style payment. Without a doubt, I fully support the additional assistance for our most vulnerable Australians to keep the lights on and the heaters running. But it's a great shame that we missed the opportunity in this place to get through the NEG or to get through some sort of energy policy so that we can have a more permanent, meaningfully addressed way of reducing energy bills. Last time I spoke in this place on the energy assistance payment, I explained how I'd spoken to an elderly lady who could barely move from her bedroom because she could not afford the heating bills for more than one room in her home.
I question why the government, with respect to the payment that they announced just a few days ago and that was referred to in the budget last night, did not include Newstart and youth allowance. Why were they ignored? I understand that the government have changed position, and I welcome that they have included Newstart recipients and youth allowance recipients and a very long list of other recipients of specific payments, but the issue is: why did you exclude them in the first place? Why is it that the government have an ideology where they see jobseekers, I believe, as dole bludgers, 'leaners'—that is the term that we heard only a few years ago and one that has been a mantra in this place: 'lifters' and 'leaners'.
I think that that language needs to stop in this place. It is clearly not the case that many people who are looking for work are dole bludgers. They are there trying their absolute hardest to find employment. There are plenty of unemployed workers who, through no fault of their own, lose their jobs because their employer goes bankrupt or their factory shuts down. When you live in a regional area, there are not as many options as in metropolitan areas to find employment.
For example, in South Australia, the Big W distribution centre in Monarto is closing. This made the newspapers this week in South Australia. This is just outside my electorate. However, many of the people who are employed there are from inside my electorate and have been employed there for a number of years. I understand that there is hope that many workers will be redeployed, but the closure of the distribution centre is patently not their fault. Neither will it be their fault if they need to apply for Newstart, which I may say is an incredibly difficult process and one that unnecessarily takes many, many weeks to do.
The level of Newstart is also not keeping families above the poverty line, because it is not keeping pace with the cost of living. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service and former Prime Minister John Howard have said that we need to look at raising the Newstart rate. When you have that collective, you know that there is a problem. This should be above politics. It needs to be urgently addressed. I know that recently, when there was a motion in here from Labor with respect to the payments, the minister was saying to Labor, 'Yes, but you're not saying you're going to lift Newstart.' Well, neither are the government, and they should. The government should be leading from the front on this. It beggars belief that both parties have not moved with respect to Newstart. It will lead to more jobs because people will be able to be job ready, and you can't be job ready on the current Newstart amount.
I support mutual obligations for jobseekers. No-one should ever expect to receive a free ride, but jobseekers do need an adequate level of financial support to effectively search for work and pay for their basic necessities while they are looking for work.
It is for these reasons that I am pleased that the energy assistance payment is being extended to more recipients of Centrelink. While I support this bill, I strongly urge the government to consider all the needs of all vulnerable Australians and to look to raise the rate.
I'm pleased to sum up this second-reading debate. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill will enable a one-off energy assistance payment to be made to all pension allowance and veteran payment recipients who reside in Australia on 2 April 2019 to assist them with their energy costs. The payment will be $75 for singles and $62.50 for each eligible member of a couple. The payment will not be taxed and will not reduce their rate of income support. This payment will help around five million Australians at a total cost of around $365 million. 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'm really pleased to rise today to speak on the Australian Business Securitisation Fund Bill 2019. I'm really happy to stand here today and speak on this bill as the shadow minister assisting for small business. We, on this side of the House, can confidently say we have consulted extensively with owners, operators and agencies that assist small and medium businesses about issues that affect them and the obstacles they face in the Australian and international markets. The measures in this bill address access to finance, and I'll turn to that in a moment. What we do know in this country is that small and medium business enterprises face a lot of challenges. One of them is the ability to upgrade and modernise key equipment. This can be in manufacturing or other industries, and, as we know, in this fast-paced economy, consistently modernising your business will differentiate you from your competitors. That is why the instant asset write-off changes made yesterday were so important. Initially introduced by Wayne Swan, they were canned by a Liberal government but, thankfully, were reintroduced, and Labor has always supported them.
Yesterday, in this place, we debated and brought into law an increase in the instant asset write-off to $25,000. It is remarkable that a mere 90 minutes later this government announced budget measures that increased the instant asset write-off, again, to $30,000 for businesses of up to $50 million in turnover. If they really wanted to help small businesses, they could have introduced this yesterday while we were debating that bill in this chamber. It could have been law by the end of the week, but, no. Once again, it's policy on the run; they're just adding a bit of cash here and there without really thinking it through. If they really wanted to help small business they could have legislated for it yesterday. That would have provided a greater good for our small businesses and medium businesses right across this country.
The real challenge for small business in this country is this government and its hopeless policy development and, of course, sad instability. But there are of course other challenges. Whilst the government might be its greatest challenge we know there are many other challenges that SMEs face. Accessibility and the ability to use modern telecommunications systems and infrastructure, making sure SMEs can communicate with their customers and their supply chains, are paramount in the operation of any small business. Connectivity is the key in the digital age, and that is why Labor will introduce an NBN service guarantee should we get elected to government. Another challenge is access to markets, whether that is export markets internationally or navigating across domestic boarders and biosecurity laws. Small businesses need clarity and baseline guidance on how and where they can market their product and services. This is particularly pertinent for newcomers to small business—people who are just starting off as a sole trader or small business for the first time.
Geographic location can be a massive issue, whether it is the distance to a business hub or a place that has an optimal amount of foot traffic or public transport. These locations for accessibility have always been a big issue and a very important concern for those running a small business in any regional or urban setting. Access to affordable spaces for SMEs to operate will always be a key issue. For any industry—and, indeed, any individual—taxation remains a hot-button issue that can make or break a small business, and we are happy to support reducing small business's tax obligations around the country.
Returning to the specifics of this bill, which is about increasing the access to capital for small and medium businesses, we know through all of our consultations with small businesses—and I know that it is the same for the government—that small business often find it very difficult to obtain finance other than on a secured basis. Those loans are usually secured against real estate, and often that is personally held real estate like the family home. On the flipside of the coin, SMEs that are established but wish to expand have often already had their finance secured against those existing homes and they find it difficult to access additional finding for capital works or other projects.
This bill gives effect to the policy to establish the Australian Business Securitisation Fund, which is a $2 billion fund which aims to increase availability while, at the same time, reduce the cost of finance for SMEs by intervening in the SME securitisation market. We on this side of the House support the principle of increasing access to finance for small and medium enterprises. The bill creates a fund and a special account and seeks to credit the special account with $2 billion over the next five years and it provides a framework for fund investment. These credits have no direct impact on the underlying cash balance as they are treated as assets on the government's balance sheet.
The focus of the security fund's activities will be investing in securitised assets backed by SME loans in either the short-term or the long-term markets. This will support the ability of smaller lenders to grow and provide credit to underserviced segments of the SME lending market by improving the ability of these lenders to obtain funding for markets at a competitive price. We have been told by the government that the Australian Office of Financial Management will administer the fund, with Treasury undertaking the initial establishment and committing to an ongoing review of the fund's operation over the term. That is a very good idea which we support.
The explanatory memorandum states:
Unlocking the securitisation market for SME loans, which is underdeveloped in Australia, will allow smaller lenders and non-bank lenders to compete more effectively, and increase the availability of lending and reduce prices in the market.
Labor has always been open-minded with regard to this policy. The member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, was asked about this proposal when the government first announced it in November last year, and he said at the time:
If this new arrangement lowers the cost of capital for SMEs without exposing the Commonwealth to undue risk then we're supportive.
The question at the time was about what the detail of this fund would be. Thankfully, the draft legislation was referred for inquiry by the Economics Legislation Committee. That committee supported the bill, but I would like to turn to a couple of observations that that committee raised which do have an effect on small and medium enterprises.
The Productivity Commission, in their submission to this inquiry, noted that in Australia SMEs are successful in raising debt finance loans. Generally they do so by mortgaging real estate—usually a house, as I said before. They said that, while nearly 90 per cent of SMEs that decided to apply for debt finance were successful, home ownership in the key entrepreneurial period of life, ages 25 to 34, was down by one-third over the past 25 years and that the continued emphasis on home ownership in Australia's risk-weighting system will increasingly inhibit SME lending. This is a key issue in Australia, with housing affordability and people being able to buy a house in the first place. So how can they go into small business in those entrepreneurial periods of life when they cannot get to the first stage, which is often purchasing the first family or individual home? This will be an increasing challenge if access to the market by first home buyers is restricted, and it will therefore restrict the development of new small businesses and innovative businesses. I accept that the securitisation fund will assist in some way, but this is a greater issue that governments and alternative governments need to consider over coming years. I thank the Productivity Commission for raising it in this inquiry.
Another very important point raised in that inquiry is the issue of access to financial literacy education by small and medium enterprises around the country. One of the submitters pointed out that many SME owners are not financially trained and require a significant amount of assistance to access appropriate funding. They said that education was 'an important element in ensuring the success and profitability of SMEs in Australia'. The Treasury noted in its submission, together with the Reserve Bank of Australia, that the roundtables they had held with small businesses and small SME funders highlighted the gaps in awareness of alternative lending options to bank loans, so to speak. Mr Tease, from Treasury, said:
Information and the lack of it, on both the lenders' part—the new lenders coming into the market don't necessarily know who their future clients are going to be, so they can't find the SMEs themselves, and, on the other side, the SMEs don't necessarily know who the new lenders are and how they go about raising finance. That's a definite issue in the market.
That was the commentary there.
I think these are important points to remember as we, an alternative government, go about doing our best to support our small and medium enterprises right around this country so that, as markets are disrupted by new technology and lending systems—new financiers all through our system—we can help to educate and provide access to entrepreneurs and new small-business owners to help them provide access to the knowledge to get hold of this finance to either start their business or indeed grow their business without necessarily always relying on the family home, which, because of housing affordability in this country, is not always available. I know this will be a debate that policymakers will have for many years to come and, of course, I look forward to it.
Labor understands that small businesses are prevalent across the Australian economy irrespective of budget, region or economic sector. As of 2016, around nine in 10 Australian businesses are small to medium enterprises. They employ over 40 per cent of the Australian workforce and account for approximately 33 per cent of Australia's GDP. We have announced several policies, and I'm more than happy to explain them. We are explaining our policies on small business to the Australian people right around this country.
The member for Fenner was a great advocate of our Access to Justice policy. The government was under threat from a wavering National Party room.
Mr Robert interjecting—
I'm going to speak for another 18 minutes, Assistant Treasurer, if that's all right with you. Go grab a cup of tea if we are boring you! But I guess that's just parliament for some.
No, that's just them.
I think so. While some members in the government might be bored with the processes of parliament, we are not. We respect it.
Mr Robert interjecting—
That's tough! But we do offer leadership and stability and policy, and we will take these policies around the country as we go into an election period shortly. We'll make sure small business confidence is restored through consistent common sense and steady cabinet processes toward policymaking, unlike what we've seen this week with the instant asset write-off just popping up. You had the great opportunity to just legislate that in the budget last night. You could have done that, but you thought you'd wait for 30 minutes and get the pomp and ceremony of a budget.
Mr Robert interjecting—
The more you say that, Assistant Treasurer, the more I'm just going to stand here and talk about policies for small business.
Mr Robert interjecting—
Let's leave that for someone else to explain. What we have are a government that are not really working in the best interests of the Australian people. As you can see today, they're quite bored with these processes and these debates over the importance of small business. They have internal unrest over much of their policy direction. It's not conducive to any progressive policy approach and only hinders the efforts of SMEs to be competitive and viable in a modern Australia.
A tax policy such as Labor's Australian investment guarantee is superior to the government policy as it stands. We understand the importance of measures to assist small and medium business enterprises, and that's exemplified in the investment guarantee policy but equally by the ATO appeals commissioner, in antiphoenixing proposals, in a pledge to make unfair contract terms illegal and in a $1 billion advanced manufacturing fund, which will be available to SMEs around the country to try to help build their capacity in manufacturing. We know that every small and medium business is unique and the diversity of Labor's policies in support of these businesses encompass many different portfolio areas. Like I said before, our pledge to have a service guarantee on the NBN is going to be particularly important to small businesses right around this country. The main point of this is certainty. Businesses around Australia are sick and tired of the lack of certainty and clarity they're getting from this government.
Back to the instant asset write-off: renew it—sure, that's fine; renew it again—sure, that's fine. We'll keep renewing it. We support this. We started it. Bringing it up to $25,000 is, of course, fine. We'll support it. Extend it to businesses with a turnover of $50 million—yes, of course. But why not make it permanent? Why not make the instant asset write-off permanent? You have businesses year-on-year wondering if they are able to claim the write-off between tax years while they go about investing in assets for their business. This government keep dropping it, piecemeal, year in, year out, so why not make it permanent? What's the trouble there? It's certainly something Labor seek to do and will do, and it's why industry groups are supporting our policy to make the instant asset write-off for businesses a permanent fixture in small business and tax reform.
Debating this is a reminder that provides the certainty of replacing an old small-business policy bandaid year in, year out. It's symptomatic of the government's approach to governing over the last two parliamentary terms: lots of flip-flops and not getting much done. These bandaid solutions do nothing to address the real problems facing modern Australia. As we know and as we've seen, many members of this government are stuck in the past and are only keen to look back and never to the future. We see the change in the members opposite, our colleagues on the other side of the House, by them changing their names. The member for Goldstein is now a modern Liberal. The candidate for Wentworth, I think, is also now a modern Liberal. If members opposite want to differentiate themselves in their own party, why don't they just take it a leap further and perhaps do what the member for Chisholm has done, which is just quit the party and have their own voice as these modern Liberals?
The modern Liberal the member for Goldstein has paid increasing attention toward pensioners in this country whilst at the same time this government have sought to cut pensions. I wish he applied as much thought to small businesses in this country. If those opposite, whoever is taking up the modern Liberal title—and I'm sure there are going to be a few in the coming weeks—wanted to fight so hard for small business, why do they initially oppose our access to justice measures?
Why did they do that for so long and then wait until the last minute for their country cousins, the Nationals, to threaten to cross the floor before they helped small businesses in a very practical way and provided them with access to justice? But those measures have come in, and I'm grateful to the member for Fenner for his work in that regard, as I'm sure are all small and medium enterprises across this country.
Obviously, people work for small businesses around this country—
Mr Robert interjecting—
Yes, I know! It might come as a treat for the Assistant Treasurer to know that little gem of information. When the modern Liberals scrap penalty rates, do they forget about the workers that work for small businesses? Small businesses—and I've spoken about this before in Hansardhave pointed out to me that all penalty rates are entirely predictable. We know when public holidays are, we tend to know when Sundays are and we know when different hours of the day are, when penalty rates can be attracted to a person's salary or wage. This is a cost of business; it's not an extra to fund. Good business owners know their obligations. It's the same, for that matter, as paying people's superannuation. I can't tell you the number of complaints I get to my electoral office from people finding they're not being paid superannuation from business owners. That is of course a grave problem for those employees, but moreover it's a problem for other small-business owners who are, quite frankly, being cheated by their competitors who are now creating an unlevel playing field. I know everyone agrees that this is something to be addressed.
It's theft.
Absolutely. I agree with the Assistant Treasurer on this. It is theft, and we should do more about it. We should think about the people that work for small businesses. We know that small-business owners work closely with their employees. They're those relationships that are so very close in our society.
Whether it's small-business policy, environment and climate change policy, industrial relations and wages policy, taxation and education, foreign affairs or consumer affairs, Labor believe that fairness must be at the core of policy formulation. That's part of what this bill aims to achieve, and it's why we are very happy to support it. Adequate and good access to finance is important for SMEs around this country. We will do all we can to make that a reality for small businesses far and wide.
I must say the focus on small business in this place today and in the last couple of days is probably a very welcome change for small businesses around the country. It's good that we have agreed on a number of things, but, gee, I really wish we could have agreed yesterday on the increases to the instant asset write-off instead of waiting for the budget last night. Ninety minutes before we probably could have taken some action in this place to help more small businesses around the country.
I want to make one more comment about small businesses. I will then sit down, as the Assistant Treasurer would really like me to. We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They employ so very many people. As I said before, they're not limited by their subject matter. We know that in Western Australia the small businesses that feed into the large resource industries on the north-west coast are of critical importance. I speak of many of the industries in Broome, Karratha, Port Hedland and Kununurra, and, of course, Darwin in the Northern Territory. The more effort these resource companies can apply to make sure their supply chains make use of the small businesses up and down that coast—and inland, for that matter—the better it will be for those growing businesses that support what is our largest export industry, iron ore in Western Australia, but also in the LNG export industry.
I know that when I speak to these very large businesses they are entirely supportive of getting small businesses involved. I know there are many challenges to that, with meeting tender requirement and all sorts of requirements for these large businesses. I congratulate the people I have met from those large mining and resource companies that are applying an extra-special effort to make sure that they seek out more of those small businesses and help them gain the skills and capacities to be able to feed into what is a very important export industry for this country. But, of course, for the towns—and they are small towns; very important, historic towns—across the state of Western Australia it is of critical importance that those small businesses and the local chambers of commerce do all they can to engage with those larger industries that will seek to support and include the small businesses as they develop their export markets and their local working conditions and operations. I thank the House.
I thank those members who have contributed to the debate and I thank the shadow minister. The Australian Business Securitisation Fund Bill 2019 will support Australia's small and medium businesses by establishing the $2 billion Australian Business Securitisation Fund. The fund will enhance access to debt finance for Australian small and medium businesses by improving small lenders' access to the securitisation market. The fund will be able to invest in Australian dollar denominated securitisations backed by SME loans, which are defined as a business loan to the value of less than $5 million. It's intended that the minister will issue an investment mandate that establishes more detailed rules for the fund including further eligibility requirements, financial performers requirements, risk management and transparency obligations. Key elements of the investment mandate were released for public comment in December 2018.
The bill and its instruments will seek to develop the SME securitisation market and unlock more competitive funding for small lenders. This set of interventions is critical in establishing more competition in the SME lending market where 80 per cent of loans are with the majors. The fund will allow these smaller lenders to compete more effectively in the SME lending market which should improve borrowing conditions for SMEs in the long run. Importantly, the bill provides for the effectiveness of the fund to be reviewed after two and five years to ensure it is meeting its objectives. These reports will be tabled in parliament.
The government understands the importance of SMEs to jobs and our economy. Businesses tell us they struggle to get finance without a home for collateral or find it difficult to access credit to expand their growing businesses once all their real estate is pledged. For those who can access finance, the interest rates charged are often high and the process of applying for finance can be long and onerous. The fund builds on this government's commitment to create more competition in the financial sector to ensure that small businesses are getting access to credit on better terms. 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, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Replacement of the wharf crane and mooring systems on Christmas Island.
As advised when this project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 25 October 2018, the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, representing the Australian government, is responsible for the provision, management and operation of port facilities on Christmas Island. These facilities support the social and economic wellbeing of the Christmas Island community and support Australia's strategic capability in the Indian Ocean region.
In the 2018-19 budget measure 'Indian Ocean Territories—essential infrastructure and air services', the government provided $51.6 million over four years from 2018-19 to upgrade Commonwealth infrastructure and underwrite essential air services in the Indian Ocean territories. The budget measure includes $26.2 million over three years from 2018-19 in capital funding, including for the project on Christmas Island. This includes management, design fees, construction costs, locality allowance, contingencies and escalation allowance.
The committee conducted an inquiry into the project and did not identify any issues of concern with the proposal. The committee is also satisfied that the project has merit in terms of the need, scope and cost. The committee is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose, having regard to the established need. The committee recommends that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works. On behalf of the government, I'd like to thank the committee for once again undertaking their inquiries.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the proposed works, construction is planned to commence in September 2019, with staged completion of facilities between September 2020 and July 2021. I commend this motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I rise today to speak on the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. This bill creates a new act which would provide a framework for government, business and community to recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and for support for veterans and their families. Importantly, this bill establishes the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant.
The idea of a covenant which acknowledges the importance of both current and ex-serving personnel is not a new one. The ex-serving community have been advocating for this for many years, having seen the effective operation of the covenant in the United Kingdom and seeing value in establishing one here in Australia. I'd like to pay tribute to the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations, otherwise known as ADSO, who have been spearheading this campaign for many, many years, urging governments and oppositions to consider establishing a covenant and arguing for its importance.
Subsequently, after much consultation by me and the Leader of the Opposition, in September last year, Labor announced its commitment to developing an Australian military covenant. This commitment, as I said, was made on the back of lobbying by those in the current and ex-serving community who impressed upon me and Labor the importance of acknowledging the unique nature of military service.
Serving in the ADF is a career unlike any other, and what we ask of those who serve and those who stand beside them is exceptional. Consequently, our obligation to those who serve should be unwavering.
Our proposed covenant was to be a solemn promise which recognised our obligation to, and acknowledged the sacrifices made by, both current and ex-serving Defence personnel. When an individual undertakes to serve their country, we, in turn, undertake a commitment to look after them and their loved ones both during and after their service. And, while this promise has been an implicit promise by governments for many years, we did believe, last September, that our serving men and women deserved to know, in no uncertain terms—in very explicit terms—that we value their service and will look after them.
As part of the military covenant that we committed to, we also argued for introducing a legislative requirement which would see governments report annually to parliament on how they were meeting their responsibility to support our serving and ex-serving personnel. We firmly believe in the importance of a military covenant, and it is for this reason that we've welcomed the government adopting the proposal and establishing a covenant—albeit very, very late in the parliamentary term.
However, there are a few key differences between what we proposed last September and what the government has introduced in this legislation. The first is the absence of a mention of currently serving ADF personnel in the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. This is unlike the UK's covenant, which does recognise both those currently serving and veterans. Labor's military covenant did seek to cover both those currently serving and those who have left, in recognition of the whole-of-life obligation we have to look after those serving as well as those who have left Defence. We believe that the government, without including those currently serving, is missing a big piece of the puzzle. Our obligation to look after members is just as great when they are serving as it is when they transition, through that transition and then while in civilian life.
In addition, Labor's military covenant included annual reporting in the form of a statement to parliament on how the government is meeting its obligations to current and ex-serving personnel. While we recognise there is currently an annual statement to parliament, that is purely a decision of the government and not a statement by the parliament. We think that the absence from this bill of a legislative requirement to report to the parliament is a problem. I believe that requiring the government to report back to the parliament about how they are supporting current and ex-serving personnel would provide an important accountability measure, and we think that the accountability measure should be to the parliament of this country.
Given the importance of this legislation, Labor felt it prudent to send this legislation to a Senate inquiry in order to ensure that consultation had been adequately conducted and to enable interested parties to make submissions. In addition, some in the veterans community believed that the opposition had been consulted on the wording and the detail of this covenant well before it was in parliament. I need to place on the record that this simply was not the case. There was no consultation. The opposition had not been engaged until this legislation was in the parliament. It was disappointing, certainly, and it was therefore important that we proceeded to a Senate inquiry in order to ensure that proper consultation would occur. Through the Senate inquiry we teased out some outstanding issues. Particularly, the issues of including current serving personnel and of regular reporting to parliament were raised.
While Labor does have these concerns, we are acutely aware of how few sitting days we have before the calling of an election and we respect the desire of the ex-serving community to have this bill passed before the election that's coming up. With this in mind, I think it is important to note that despite the government announcing their commitment in October last year it has taken them many months to introduce this legislation. In order not to delay the passage of this bill, Labor requested that the Senate committee complete its inquiry by 22 March in order to enable both the examination of the legislation and that the process be completed by this sitting week.
Fundamentally, Labor does support the introduction of this legislation and the legislation of a covenant that recognises the obligation we have to those who have served. As detailed, Labor's announcement did go further than this covenant before the parliament. Labor believes that our obligation is no greater to those who have left the ADF than to those still serving. This is an issue that was noted by the Defence Force Welfare Association, as the peak body representing current serving members and as the chief advocate, for the past 10 years, of the need for a military covenant. The association stated:
… the intent of the legislation through the concept of the unique nature of military service is for recognition to be inclusive of not only veterans but of those still serving in military uniform.
Labor continues to consider whether there is a benefit in including current serving members in the covenant, and we do believe it is the case. However, as we said, we will not propose any amendments at this stage, because of the need to see this legislation enacted. In addition, we won't be moving any amendments addressing the absence of a reporting function, despite believing strongly that it has merit. As I have said, I continue to believe it is worthwhile to include reporting requirements in the legislation as a way to ensure the covenant is more than just a set of words. This has been a strong desire of many I have spoken to in the ex-service community. If Labor is successful at the next election, these are two issues we will certainly consider in ways that could strengthen the covenant, and we will do so in consultation with the serving and ex-serving community.
In addition to the covenant, this bill introduces a number of other clauses aimed at recognising the sacrifices made by those who served. This acknowledgement is chiefly contained within the general recognition clause, which acknowledges the unique nature of military service and the demand we place on those who serve and the additional support that they might require and the Commonwealth commitment to providing that support. Furthermore, it acknowledges the demands placed on and the sacrifices made by families of veterans. This is an important component and one which has not always been acknowledged as well as it should be.
The nature of military life is unique, and families can also be deeply affected by military service. We know that many servicemen and servicewomen are deployed internationally for months at a time, with this separation causing emotional stress for partners and children. When they are not deployed, there is regular reposting to different bases around the country, meaning they have to choose between uprooting their whole family or living apart for a period of time. Post service, particularly in cases where someone has been medically discharged, there is also ongoing and significant impact on the family. Military families make many sacrifices both during and after service, all the while supporting their loved ones.
The importance of family for those who have served or continue to serve is an issue which has come up time and time again during the approximately 53 roundtables that I've held over the last three years with current and ex-serving ADF members. These individuals have made it clear that for too long families have been overlooked and have not been given a seat at the table when it comes to discussing what support they need. It is for this reason that Labor have announced that, if elected, we will develop a national family engagement and support strategy. The strategy is a direct recommendation from the National Mental Health Commission review into veteran suicide and self-harm. The strategy will give families a voice and provide a national blueprint to include engagement of DVA and Defence with military families. Importantly, it will address the lack of engagement with families and acknowledge the critical role they play. In a bill designed to recognise the service of veterans, it is appropriate that families are also recognised. Labor is pleased to see families included in the general recognition clause and in the covenant itself. This recognition is long overdue.
As an extension of the general recognition clause, the bill also introduces an overarching statement in relation to the beneficial nature of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio legislation, making it clear that veterans legislation has a beneficial purpose and should be interpreted accordingly. This is a welcome addition and something that is raised with me by many advocates in the ex-service organisations and ex-service community across Australia. I routinely hear stories where, despite the intention to promote a beneficial purpose in the veterans legislation, advocates state that the legislation has not been applied in a beneficial way to assist veterans. I understand that currently none of the principal acts include a beneficial statement similar to what is proposed in this bill. Instead, the VEA and MRCA contain provisions that enable limited flexibility and promote a beneficial purpose. Including this section will make it clear to decision-makers, veterans and the ex-serving community that the Commonwealth is committed to decision-makers interpreting legislation in a way that benefits veterans and their families where that interpretation is consistent with the purposes of the provision.
Of course, there are elements that can't be beneficial, such as the recovery of Commonwealth debt and the provision protecting the Commonwealth from fraud. However, this bill makes it clear that, where possible, the act should be interpreted beneficially. Department training will be undertaken to ensure decision-makers understand and appropriately apply the legislation. In addition the bill will acknowledge that the role of each decision-maker is one of responsibility, with decision-makers in a trusted position and, as such, that they should act ethically, honestly, objectively and with integrity. The bill acknowledges that when this happens it is reflected positively in the public perception of the department and themselves.
A paragraph will be inserted that will provide that claim decisions be made within a time that is proportionate to the complexity of the matter, acknowledging the variety of the complex client claims and subsequent differences in timeliness. As part of this section, a clause will be inserted that states that a decision-maker is committed to only requiring evidence sufficient to meet the relevant standard of proof for the claims. The timeliness of claims is a common source of concern and frustration for many in the ex-service community. I understand that, as of 4 March, the longest claim under the Veterans' Entitlements Act was 547 days, which is one year, four months, two weeks and five days, and the longest DRCA related claim was 548 days, which is one year, six months and two days. Fundamentally, these are individual veterans waiting for an outcome of their claim for well in excess of a year. Any improvements or commitments to addressing the timeliness of claims would be welcome by Labor and the veterans' community. As such, Labor offers our support to the general recognition element of this bill and urges the department and the government to resolve these claims that continue to blow out.
Finally, this bill will also provide recognition for veterans and their families in the form of a lapel pin, card and other artefacts in recognition of the military service of veterans and the sacrifices made by the families of veterans. This inclusion is to facilitate the second half of the government's announcement from October last year. The announcement included, as I said, the establishment of a veterans discount card and the provision of a lapel pin. At the time, Labor offered our support to the establishment of these items if it would bring tangible benefits to veterans; however, the government has absolutely failed to provide this. Since October, Labor has sought information as to which businesses have signed up to offer discount cards to current serving men and women and also to our veterans. Questions have surrounded the card since last year. It was disappointing to find that, as at the most recent estimates process, no businesses have actually signed up to the card. When it was announced, the government stated that it would be a separate card to those healthcare cards of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Of course, now we find out that it will actually be a rebadging and a reissuing of the current DVA healthcare card, at a lost of $11.1 million.
Since the card was announced five months ago, the only commitment for discounts was made by Virgin Australia, who originally offered priority boarding, but, after a backlash from veterans, has now sought to review that. This offer was derided by so many in the veterans community as a tokenistic gesture, which subsequently led to the offer being with drawn and placed under review. Since that time there have been no commitments from business in relation to this card, and there is growing scepticism within the veterans community about whether this was a cheap ploy by the government. I'm also aware that there are a number of other discount cards which veterans currently have access to—some at a cost; some of which are free—which offer a range of discounts. It is unclear how the discounts offered by these cards will interact with the veterans discount card, which is also a healthcare card.
We want to see tangible benefits delivered to veterans. If that is in the form of discounts, well, so be it. But we've not seen from this government any tangible benefits delivered when it comes to this discount card. That being said, this legislation does formalise the card and the lapel pin as forms of recognition for those who have served, and we offer support for that. If we are elected we will have to get to work on cleaning up the government's mess when it comes to the veterans discount card. We look forward to more information being available about the veterans discount card in Senate estimates on Friday. Hopefully, the department will be able to give us real information about the practical benefits that are being delivered as a result of this card. As I said, as at February this year, we have not been able to get such answers.
In closing I would like to thank all of those in the veterans community who have participated in providing feedback, who have lobbied for recognition as part of the military covenant, who have contributed to the Senate inquiry and who continue to advocate so strongly for veterans right across this country. As I have flagged: while not proposing any amendments here, if elected we will certainly consider ways we can strengthen this legislation through regular reporting to parliament and the inclusion of currently serving ADF members. However, we support the principles of the bill and acknowledge the support for those who have served and their loved ones. This is very important recognition. It is an important message coming from the whole parliament that we appreciate your service. We recognise the sacrifices that you and your families have made. I commend the bill to the House.
I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
How do you judge the contribution that you have made in this place? It is not by numerical standards, such as the number of speeches, or by the rank you attain or, indeed, whether you table the world's largest petition or deliver the first speech in sign language—both of which I have done. Nor is it by column inches, by the power you accrue, by the power that you or your faction attains or, indeed, the success of your political party. All of these things may be achieved, but real results can only be measured by their impact on people and on our nation, and, may I say, are best judged by others.
First, let me acknowledge the honour and responsibility the electors of Ryan granted me. From a national population of now more than 25 million, they elected me to be one of only 150 Australian citizens entrusted to serve in the House of Representatives. As the 31st female coalition member elected to the House of Representatives from Queensland, and only the sixth Queensland female coalition government minister since Federation, some 118 years ago, I feel immense pride in having served my constituents and my nation.
Almost nine years ago I stood in this place, although on the other side of the chamber, next to my friend and colleague the member for Bennelong, as I do today, to deliver my maiden speech. My principles and beliefs have not changed since I first joined the Liberal Party as a junior member in 1968. I believe in the individual and that by empowering the individual we will unlock the potential of our society. I believe in maximising individual rights and minimising government intervention in the marketplace. That is why I sought election in the first place, to serve the people of Ryan.
With election comes enormous responsibility: a responsibility to make decisions in the best interests of all Australians and our nation. It sounds dramatic, doesn't it? And so it is. At a time when people are disillusioned with mainstream politics and are tempted by demagogues and at a time when people, particularly younger Australians, are no longer joining political parties, it is important that they know that we do seek to govern in their best interests—that we do not regard politics as a winner-takes-all contest, with the winner being a major party and not the people of Australia.
I came to this place from years of real experience: raising a family, building one of Queensland's largest event management companies and, then, spending 10 years as a Brisbane City councillor. My business experience taught me the importance of a strong economy, that you are only as good as your staff and that our economy depends on successful businesses. I digress briefly to congratulate the government for delivering an outstanding budget for all Australians last night. As the Treasurer said, small businesses are integral to every local community. My experience also taught me that individuals are the cornerstone of our economy, be they staff or employers.
So, what does this mean to my role as a member? It means that I cannot be a mere delegate for my party. I must exercise my judgement in this place, in my party room and in my community. My time as a councillor on the Brisbane City Council reinforced the importance of people in communities when it comes to achieving outcomes. While I can lay claim to significant achievements, there is nothing quite as rewarding as helping an individual, a family or a community group. As I have said many times in this place, we are so fortunate in Ryan to benefit from the invaluable contribution of so many dedicated volunteers.
Federal government is an unwieldy beast and frustratingly slow when it comes to getting things done. I reflect on the many cases where I, and others alike, have raised the need for change. Years later, we are still working our way through committees, reviews and consultants. We must do better. We must, as a parliament, recognise that delays in this place ultimately limit the ability of ordinary Australians to conduct their daily lives and achieve their aspirations. Every day, as the member for Ryan I have fought to deliver local projects as well as funding for medical and other research at the University of Queensland. UQ has delivered world leaders in Professor Ian Frazer with his human papillomavirus vaccine, Mark Kendall and the Nanopatch, and, most recently, Katie Schroder and her research into a cure for Parkinson's disease, to name just a few. Indeed, the University of Queensland is in the top 10 in the world for commercialisation—the only university in Australia.
There are a number of issues that have occupied my time in federal parliament. Of all portfolios, the area of disability services highlights our responsibility to help the most vulnerable in our community. I thank Malcolm Turnbull for his trust and confidence in appointing me as Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services. The National Disability Insurance Scheme has the potential to deliver, but it is crucial that we get it right sooner rather than later. The reason the NDIS is needed is the very reason it is so difficult to deliver: everyone is different and requires complex support services. Time-consuming and challenging, it is also a remarkable example of what a bipartisan approach can bring to our political discourse. However, it is still a work in progress and a massive task, with much to be done. The potential rewards are life-changing for Australia's most vulnerable, who are least able to support themselves. I am disappointed that I did not get to finish the job, but I appreciated the opportunity to meet so many amazing people with challenges in their lives far greater than I hope to ever face. It does put things into perspective at times.
In my first speech, I spoke about defence. I did so from a background of my great-grandfather, Sir George Pearce, Australia's longest serving defence minister; my late father, Alan Righetti, a World War II fighter pilot and a prisoner of war in Stalag Luft III; and my son, a serving soldier. I thank former senator the late Russell Trood for his advice and encouragement to participate in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. As a result, I have been privileged to join the dedicated service men and women of our ADF every year on a variety of activities and exercises—from Talisman Sabre to Pitch Black to high altitude training on Black Hawks in PNG to RIMPAC in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and most recently with the 1st Signal Regiment at Gallipoli Barracks. My visit to Afghanistan was both confronting and rewarding. It provided me with a firsthand insight into the numerous challenges facing our troops. These observations, whether in peace or war, could never be achieved with even the most detailed briefings or white papers. I strongly recommend the ADF Parliamentary Program to all my colleagues. In an increasingly challenging region where international law is sometimes ignored, the importance of our Defence Force cannot be underestimated.
As I have said before, we must not take our Pacific neighbours for granted. We must work with them to strengthen our region. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Curtin bolstered ties and directed our aid to focus on support for the empowerment of women and girls, and for health and education. And I congratulate the Prime Minister and Senator Payne on the announcement of the $2 billion Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific. But we cannot rest; there is still so much more needed. And we must work smarter. There are, for example, outstanding NGOs such as the remarkable YWAM and the community ranger program organised by the wife of the member for Leichhardt. Other NGOs should take a leaf out of their books—practical, hands-on services where they are most needed. I am often torn when I hear and see the inconsistency of approaches in the Pacific by some well-meaning NGOs. This is not to say that their intentions are flawed, but we could achieve so much more by everyone working together. Australia's role in the Pacific has long been a beacon, a friend, and a neighbour who can be called upon at any time. The clear message to our Pacific neighbours is: we have your back.
But as a friend our relationship can also be strengthened through the provision of accurate and timely reporting of current affairs that affect our region. This in turn leads me to call for the reinstatement of the DFAT Australia Network contract for the ABC's Asia-Pacific broadcasting services. The ABC has a charter obligation to provide international services. This is best achieved by having in situ correspondents in our region to report and engage directly. Sean Dorney was a quintessential ABC correspondent who worked for decades to inform Australians. Whilst Brexit and President Trump have dominated our headlines every morning for more than a year, Australians are genuinely interested in our near neighbours. It is of the utmost importance that honest reporting and news services are afforded to the people of the Pacific. We need to replicate Sean's inspiring independent journalism.
As part of the Asia-Pacific family, we are always ready to support our neighbours through the tough times. But we also need to speak up when our friends do the wrong thing. We cannot continue to ignore the human rights abuses in West Papua—indeed, what history will regard as genocide on our very doorstep. As President Obama said so well when he addressed a joint parliamentary session in this chamber:
As two global partners, we stand up for the security and dignity of people around the world.
… … …
We stand for an international order in which the rights and responsibilities of all nations and people are upheld.
… … …
Every nation will chart its own course.
Yet it is also true that certain rights are universal …
… … …
… as two great democracies, we speak up for these freedoms when they are threatened.
We partner with emerging democracies, like Indonesia, to help strengthen the institutions upon which good governance depends.
… … …
This is the future we seek in the Asia Pacific—security, prosperity and dignity for all.
As with our politics, our nation is built on a remarkable history—history not always well recorded. In 2010, the great promoter of the Dig Tree, Dr Denver Beanland of the Royal Historical Society of Queensland, encouraged me to take an interest in the National Archives. I have been honoured to represent the coalition on their advisory council for the last eight years and have served with some remarkable colleagues from all over Australia who are committed to preserving the history and records of our country. Whilst we trust and rely on the National Archives to store the memory of our nation, we must support and fund them in the new digital age. The digitisation of World War II records is in great demand. But it doesn't happen by magic, and there are many other records urgently requiring restoration before we lose them forever. The National Archives, a foundation institution, must be supported.
Clearly, I am disappointed to be leaving in this way. Contrary to misleading stories at the time, there was no deal. Impatient ambition, treachery and lies are now more than ever part of our political fabric. For the only response to be, 'Oh, come on, that's politics,' is actually very sad. It is also sad that we are increasingly seeing candidates and elected members whose primary focus is not a desire to serve their communities but to serve themselves. Personal ambition seems to be replacing an ambition for our nation. As Jimi Hendrix, of all people, said, 'We won't start to do better until we turn the love of power into the power of love.' We need members who understand what it is to start and run a business—representatives like the member for Forrest and the member for Hinkler, who know what it is to put their livelihoods on the line. As the Treasurer said last night, like so many small-business owners, they know what it is to start early and finish late—people who manage the front desk and the back office, people who pay their workers first and their wages last. We need members who understand small-business owners, whose families also go without. And the coalition last night delivered for these people in the budget.
We need members who understand that every new piece of legislation invariably introduces yet more regulation and red tape that strangles and chokes enterprise and entrepreneurship. Good government is not about politicians; it is about the people we represent. When government fails, the most vulnerable in our society suffer. There is a growing distrust and cynicism in our community when it comes to politics, a frustration made worse by internal division. There is a yearning for the clarity and unity of John Howard's broad church. In this place we should not be constrained by short-term political necessity. It is, in essence, the responsibility of this place to govern for the longer-term betterment of Australia.
There are so many people I wish to thank—people who inspired me, people whose wise counsel was so necessary when my heart would overrule common sense and people who, by necessity, were so often the interface between me and my electors. I recognise my colleagues on both sides of the House and in the other place. While we often take a swipe at one another and interject across the chamber, we remain committed to our constituencies. Our views, policy and political beliefs are often at odds with one another, but we do find similarities in our equally important commitment to doing the right thing.
Let me not forget my appreciation for the work of the press gallery, which includes many friends.
Every member in this place is supported by a range of both personal and parliamentary staff. As I said previously, a member is only as good as the team that supports them. I want to place on record my appreciation to the many dedicated workers in this building, who ensure everything runs smoothly and who support our many demands and idiosyncrasies. I thank the Clerk and the Serjeant-at-Arms and their officers and, indeed, all the parliamentary staff.
Most importantly, I want to pay tribute to my staff. I would like to recognise the contributions of all those who have worked in the many capacities, both paid and voluntary, needed to facilitate my time as both the Member for Ryan and the Assistant Minister for Disability Services. To all my staff past and present: thank you. Your support and guidance, even when I wandered off track on occasion, was invaluable. We had many robust discussions and disagreements, but your input was essential. There are too many to mention individually today, but I will single out those here in the chamber—my first staffer, the forensic Luke Barnes; the ever tolerant Tristan Bick; and my long-serving manager, Christine Cahill, who has been an integral part of my office. I also thank my ministerial staff for their tremendous support in a challenging portfolio—David, Tony, Annabel, Michael, Ruth and Rohan. And I give a special call out to Max.
I believe I have done my best for my constituents and for my nation. I must thank my constituents and the wider Ryan community for their trust and support through these past nine years. To those who have reached out since my preselection: thank you for your kind words of support.
And, finally, my family: in a job that involves the complex life of a public figure, in this case a member of parliament, family is both support network and a haven from the slings and arrows of outrageous social media fortunes. Like all families, we've had our challenges during these years. I have lost my father and my mother-in-law. My sister survived a life-threatening health challenge. On the upside, I have gained a wonderful daughter-in-law, two fabulous grandchildren and, in keeping with the idiom of 'if you want a friend in politics', two fur family members of the kelpie variety—Rocky and Nyssa.
Ian, Mum, Caitlin, George and Eboney, Katy and Peter: thank you for your unconditional love and for the backup. Zara and William: Nonna hopes that you will continue to believe that your Parliament House is a very special place and that one day you might carry on the tradition of service, gifted to you by five generations of your family, beginning with the very first parliament of our nation.
Mr Speaker, I also seek to speak on indulgence. In the world of politics it's not always possible to express a farewell message. I'm pleased that I have such an opportunity. After 5½ years of serving my community, I want to say thank you for the unique experiences that have been part of this unusual life journey. Being any kind of leader in any aspect of social fabric is about service—at least, that has been my priority for many years.
I would like to start in an unusual place, and that is to thank the cleaners, the security men and women and the House attendants, whose collective service to this place is amazing. Luch, you deserve a special mention for the unending supply of glasses of water 'on the house'. Thanks for that gesture of friendliness. It has been appreciated. The team in Aussies, especially Bridget, knows my coffee better than I do. This is a welcome addition every day, often more than once, and their friendly service is such a plus.
I reread my maiden speech just to make sure the goals I set were not completely unrealistic. Those targets were put in place by an idealistic woman, and that was me. I had no complete understanding of just how difficult advocacy can be. Together with input from the community, we have had a great run in Gilmore. Almost all of my targets have been met and many more achieved to make living in Gilmore just that much better.
Roads and youth unemployment levels have always been priority issues—not enough of the first and too much of the second. Well over $250 million has been delivered for roads and transport infrastructure, and youth unemployment has been brought down from almost 30 per cent to hovering around and sometimes below 10 per cent. Only a government that has financial responsibility as the guiding principle can get such results.
When the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, was Treasurer, I cannot tell you how many times I heard the words: 'We're not changing the envelope. If you need investment for projects, go and negotiate with the relevant ministers.' It's my true belief that the Liberals and Nationals are best placed to keep a sensible approach to the budget for Australia. I'm old enough to have endured Labor-driven recessions that we 'had to have' and interest rates of 17 per cent while trying to make ends meet with mortgages, business loans and employee wages, and I'm pretty sure that's why I stand with the Liberal and National members of parliament, because we do know how to keep Australia financially strong, with a long-term vision.
However, as this is most likely my last chance to put on record just how hard my government and I have worked to deliver for the people of Gilmore, let's just recap on some of my favourites. Because I've never been one to fully exploit these achievements, this will be the formal record of my work and the efforts of those living, working and serving in the Gilmore community.
In 5½ years, over $2 billion has been invested, building on a similar amount under the previous member for Gilmore, Jo Gash. Some were tiny amounts, but changing accident-prone intersections throughout the electorate, from roundabouts in the Nowra CBD to the Tuross Head turnoff, has been making a huge difference for people's safety. There was funding for road blackspots, for rail fencing and for mobile phone blackspots, so that we could have safety and communication in the long stretches of the Princes Highway—those are examples of improvements. There is still more to do, but it's improving in every quarter. The funding for the Tomakin roundabout was a massive injection of $3.4 million, making everyone very happy, locals and tourists alike. And, finally, we've had $25 million invested and committed to match the state funding for the Batemans Bay aquatic and performing arts precinct. This has been two decades in the making and is now a confirmed project, before the election.
There are preschool and pony club kitchens, and, for Men's Sheds, solar and new equipment for their activities—and of course there are never enough tools in a Men's Shed! The Yumaro enterprise, under the guidance of their board and CEO Mark Brantingham, has been a favourite of mine, developing their workshop space and then investing in the accommodation and respite facility for people with a disability. Their passion and advocacy inspired me to push hard for their projects. That was so too for Anne Minato at Muddy Puddles for children with developmental difficulties. Then of course there was Charles Stuart, the tireless worker for the fully inclusive playground at Batehaven. What a joy it has been, getting to know them all and working with them to see the completion of their dreams and to serve their community better.
The Moruya airport, with the extra infrastructure, helping grow the seaplane business, Sea Breeze Aviation; the parachute jumpers at Skydive Oz; the oyster hatchery—these reflect the dynamics of a council making changes, and federal government investment. I thank the previous mayor, Lindsay Brown, for assisting me to identify projects for the Eurobodalla, and I thank the current mayor, Liz Innes, for her vision to follow through on these projects for her community.
The Shoalhaven, which has about two-thirds of the population of Gilmore, is home to the amazing HMAS Albatross. It has been a hive of upgrades, reconstruction, security, investment and innovation, and I am extremely proud to have worked alongside some great officers and serving men and women at both Albatross and my adopted base, Creswell: Captains Simon Bateman, Steve Hussey, Charles Huxtable and Fiona Sneath, and the fabulous Commodores Vince Di Pietro and Chris Smallhorn. The measured and super skills of Tim Barrett, Chief of Navy, now retired and living in Gilmore, helped bring the vision of a helicopter base of excellence to fruition in our very own backyard. That vision was almost interrupted by a Queensland MP, who wanted the Helicopter Aircrew Training System in his electorate. This was the first of many projects where my tenacity paid off, and we kept that project—keeping hundreds of our locals and Navy personnel employed in the Shoalhaven. Over half a billion dollars have been invested in the base already, and there are significantly more to come. I never did get the hang of all the acronyms; I would've needed a book the size of the Webster dictionary!
Speaking of Vince Di Pietro, he has become a friend and was integral in igniting my passion for the work done at Triple Care Farm, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility for youth in the northern sector of Gilmore, now the outstanding location of a detox unit, due to the investment of $2 million by this federal government—thank you, Greg—to complement the funds already raised by the Sir David Martin Foundation. Triple Care Farm is making exceptional headway for lost youth and distraught parents. In fact, this model rehab facility is the inspiration for a Triple Care facility to be established in Cairns and another in Batemans Bay for rehabilitation. These are not just promises but commitments by this government. They will change the lives of these young people who are seeking to take a different direction in their journey of life. I thank the Sir David Martin Foundation, Gabriella Holmes, Alex Green, Ben Carblis, and all the people connected, for their inspiring actions that helped me push for additional funding.
When I pass the basketball and sports centre at Bomaderry, the bridge at Duck Creek near Huskisson, the Dunn Lewis Centre in Ulladulla, travel on Turpentine Road, pass the skate parks at Culburra, Manyana and Sanctuary Point, I quietly smile, knowing that my advocacy helped these projects to become a reality. There are a number of local people who have shared their efforts and their dreams and they have been so important on the journey: Ralph Cook and John Martin, for the basketball stadium fit-out, Gayle Dunn for her tireless energy for the youth in Ulladulla, and the entrepreneurial efforts of Alex McNeilly, turning the federal government promise of $20,000 for a little skate park into a $650,000 development at Culburra Beach, which is a skaters dream, with a children's play area, amenity block and fitness facility. It is used all the time by locals and visitors to Culburra Beach. If only we had more people like that.
Many of my local Indigenous organisations have prospered and grown during the last five years—the Waminda women—especially with the behind the scenes support of Raj and Sophie Ray, the families and workers at Cullunghutti, and especially the Jerrinja, with their growth and self-pride youth training initiatives and exploration of their natural skills as saltwater people. The number of young Indigenous year 12 students continues to grow each year and they make everybody so proud. I was particularly pleased when I was made aware of a title deed hurdle for Jerrinja and I was able to resolve this for them, leading to marine-culture ventures, eco-tourism, residential expansion and, above all else, employment and training for our Indigenous youth.
The injection of the $20 million job package into regional development has been transformational for productivity, employment and innovation. From dairy to engineering, to training and botanic gardens, from aquaculture to airport expansions, this has been terrific and I compliment every participating business for their efforts. They have all paid off. I wish to thank all our small business owners for their vision, growing the local economy and employing more people, and my government for investing so well in this region.
Unemployment in Gilmore, particularly for youth, has been stubbornly high. This is absolutely not the situation now. The Liberal-National government has delivered in every respect and plans to continue this after the next election, given the chance by a well-informed voting public. Yet the local media has said very little about reduced unemployment. In the early years they were quick and strident in their criticism. I guess good news just isn't newsworthy.
However, today should be a celebration for the people of Gilmore striving to make things better for the local people. It has been my driving force. It is my belief that each of us in our different roles has the ability to inspire others to be the best that they can be, whether this is in media, business, politics or parenting. We have a responsibility to inspire for good. I thank the journos who share this ethic—and they know who they are. I'm glad there are more of them than those who dwell in doom and disaster. I am reminded often by a quote now pinned on the wall in my office. It has been helpful when I see the wrong actions of others. In the words of Mahatma Ghandi:
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
I still love the ocean.
I have loved the opportunity to work alongside Ros Dundas from CARE Australia. The forums we've held have empowered me to be a mentor for women parliamentarians in Myanmar, via the International Women's Development Agency. The last 5½ years have been a collective effort of mentoring, guiding and assisting in so many different ways: women like Wendy Woodward, Pat Davis and Dorothy Barker, supporters Jim Reid, Pam Coles, Richard and Maxine Warner, Kath and John Le Bas, Fran and Huon Hassall, Kellie Marsh and her son Nathan, Kath and Ross Waddell, Ron and Marilyn Silberberg and John and Caryl Haslem. Even though Caryl is no longer with us, her energy and vibrancy remain an inspiration. And there are so many others whose help was amazing in the 2013 election, and then again in 2016. We wouldn't have won without you all.
Surprisingly, my staff records filled almost two cartons—amazing people doing a fabulous job helping to sort out problems for our people and promote great Liberal-National policy and achievements. Some are young people and some are older, but all are completely dedicated to doing their best. There are some who should be mentioned as being really special: Molly Anstiss, Claire Short and Marie Wright, now working in the travel industry; Saskia Macey, now a mum; her mum, Nikki Macey, working in the ACT government; Kate Ryan, now working in the Shoalhaven City Council; Alana Faust, working in a community leadership organisation; Jacob Williams, working with Wollongong council; Avalon Bourne, developing leadership in our local area; Brad Stait, now working for the justice department; Glenn Ellard, who gave politics the flick and is training to be a chef and loving it; Georgina Neuhaus, now working for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, my friend the Hon. Senator Marise Payne; James Perrin, now working for the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, who is also a mate; and many others who have gone on to bigger and better places.
But I say without reservation that my current team have been with me for some time and have become my dear friends. And they really are precious, as the last couple of years have been tumultuous. Keeley Hayden, also doing her degree, is my first point of call and handles the day-to-day really well. Miriam Williams has developed exceptional skill with NBN issues, NDIS and immigration, helping so many people to get to the bottom of a problem. Dave Marshall is pretty good on Facebook and making videos. He is terrific with communications issues and Centrelink. He is very quiet and compassionate for people who are really stressed with their problems. Jen Hampshire, who is the ultimate 'keep calm and pretend everything is fine' person, is multi-skilled, down-to-earth and a treasured friend. Her wise and considered counsel, especially in recent times, has made me feel that Jen is family. Finally, there is Bonnie Marshall, who has been with me since my first phrase way back in 2012—'I think I'll have a crack at pre-selection for Gilmore, what do you reckon?' She is practical, talented, no-nonsense, funny, loyal and a great friend. We have been bound as mates since the first time I laughingly told her about a house I door-knocked where I could distinctly hear the clip-clop of horse's hooves inside the house and a whinny as I trod on the verandah. That horse was her pony and it had broken the back door to the neighbouring house, also owned by the family and unoccupied at the time. We have so many funny stories that have occurred since then—like seagull splats on fish and chips and adopting three-legged goats. They just go on. I think we'll write a book—Bonnie's Animal Adventures!
It is events such as these that I will hold precious, not the disappointing mechanics of change that were the catalyst for me being in this House giving my final speech. To those loyal Liberals who worked tirelessly to hold Gilmore in the best political position, I salute your every effort. I say thank you to Andrew Humphries, Ian Hardy, Jan Natt, Wilga Crehan, Shirley Batho, Dave and Jan Tarbertt, Kay McNiven, Gavin McClure, Neil Harnwell, David and Sandy Smith, David Grey, Liz Tooley, Jo Brown, Tom Marshall, Ken Levy and Graham Williams.
My first career was teaching and, 40 years ago, I began a friendship with Chris Costin. This friendship continues still—supportive and independent, a shoulder to cry on, a smile to laugh with. Thank you for it all and for sharing your family with me—Warwick, Matt, Richard and Greg and all their partners and all their lovely children.
There are two other very important friends, both mentors and tormentors—especially at campaign times. They are Jo Gash and John Bennett. In addition, during our campaigns, they acted with the assistance of Martin L behind the scenes. Their loyalty and hard work are unquestionable. They have an uncanny knack of knowing just what strategy will work best during a campaign. That included getting rid of bats in Batemans Bay—thank you, Greg Hunt; tempering and, in some cases, insisting on subtle changes to my campaign media that made a softer landing and a better effect; helping to fundraise; and booth worker lists. And, before I forget, thank you to every single booth worker, permitter of signs, person handing out shopping lists and to-do lists and all the other related activities of keeping my ID awareness pretty high. Thank you. But back to John and Jo. In a campaign, their strength and guidance is brilliant. I am proud to call them my most valued friends. We will remain that way for many years to come. Jo, Jen, Bonnie and John, you are simply the best.
My children, Rodney, Kim and Barry; Barry's wife, Romee; and my granddaughters, Sophie Mae and Eva Nellie, have been the emotional rocks and inspiration during what has been a roller-coaster ride, particularly in the last six to eight months. From a bitter and unexpected AGM changeover and all that happened around that time to an amazing opportunity to represent my country at the United Nations General Assembly—speaking to the UN Security Council on the Australian perspective on the role of women, peace and security—to less than a week later writing the eulogy for my father's memorial service, there have been so many highs and lows.
But my family has been there for me through it all, as has my mother, Valerie Lewis, who is here today, who has shared the journey of politics, from doorknocking in Shell Cove to handing out at polling booths, and who has a good grasp of what's going on, as she lives in the electorate of Cook, that of the Prime Minister, my friend Scott Morrison. Mum, thank you for your love and sympathy when it was needed. Even though my dad is no longer here, I thank him too for giving me the philosophy of serving others, which has been and continues to be my guiding principle.
So what else have I learned while being the representative of a community of over 150,000? Well, firstly, be careful where you doorknock, dodge the horses and, when informed that there are residents with guns in a particular street, dodge that street too. True story! Learn to walk, not rush, in trying to get to meetings and deadlines. After several falls, I have tallied three broken toes, two bruised ribs and a break in the main shin bone after launching myself and crash-landing on my knee when trying to get to a photo shoot for the Princes Highway funding. It's a pity I didn't realise it was broken; the pain over Christmas may not have been so bad!
In this hurly-burly world of politics, the best part is the work you can do for single cases where bureaucracy has complicated the circumstances and where, as the MP, you can help unravel the barriers. I will never forget a village visit at Wandandian, a very small village in my electorate, where a community transport bus pulled up and a single person stepped down, clearly not in good health. Her problem was that she had gone into hospital for bypass surgery—I could see the top of the scar; she had died during the operation, been revived, experienced kidney failure during that period and now she had dialysis three days a week, hence being on the community transport bus. She'd been chatting to the driver and said she'd been refused access to the disability support pension and didn't know what to do next. The driver had seen my flyer advertising my visit to Wandandian, so he drove to the village and said, 'Go see her.' A single phone call to the minister's office and a quiet demand to have the situation resolved before 10 o'clock the following day, with back payment to be calculated and deposited, made the difference for that woman. She rang me in tears of joy the next afternoon. These are the wonderful memories that make all the other rubbish of being a member of parliament worthwhile. I don't look at my Facebook anymore and I know I'm not alone in that.
I would like to thank some of the women MPs and senators for their inspiration, dignity, political leadership or words of friendship and genuine encouragement: Julie Bishop, Nola Marino, Senator Marise Payne, Senator Fiona Nash—no longer in the parliament, but we have stayed in touch since she departed—and surprisingly, but I hope the bipartisanship trend continues and grows, Senator Penny Wong, Senator Claire Moore, Gai Brodtmann and Madeleine King. Often being compassionate and understanding of parliamentary events, your words have meant so much. Collectively, you have all been supportive in different ways.
The electorate of Gilmore is named after Dame Mary Gilmore, a teacher, a poet and a woman with social justice ethics. She was born in NSW in 1865. Ninety years later, I was born. I have social justice ethics, I was a teacher and I am a poet. One of the more stressful events while being an MP surrounded my citizenship, so I have taken a couple of lines from Dame Mary Gilmore's poem called 'Nationality'—it seems a natural fit—and I have followed on with my own lines. She says:
I have grown past hate and bitterness,
I see the world as one;
But though I can no longer hate …
I have added:
I see my daughter and my son
As equals in the future world
Where each of us is valued as part of our cultural whole
Where our conscience, efforts and ambition reflect the goodness of our soul.
For fifty years ago, which seems so very far,
We girls were wearing mini-skirts and yelling 'burn the bra!'
And yet we still don't have equality in any field I know
And the gap between you blokes and us just simply seems to grow.
When men and women see compassion as a reflection of moral courage, when we shed tears and we're not judged for doing so but recognised as having the ability to share experiences and reach out to others, when we all realise that empathy is the energising force that helps make a difference for others and when we search for news and views from different sources and evaluate from many sides, then we'll be the unpolluted ocean of humanity that will be the better way forward for our sons and daughters and grandchildren. Then our extended families will be part of a social fabric that connects, reconnects, shares and cares, offering help while not inferring that if someone accepts your help then they are somehow weaker. When we can do this in our families, in our towns and perhaps, dare I say, even in our nation, we will be so much better than we are—for these are the strengths of women, and these strengths are needed.
I remain an idealist. I consider others as being essentially good—well, at least most others. I'm still working on some, but I'm only human!
Finally, I will finish by saying thank you to everyone for the rare chance to be in this place and serve the community. I recall a phrase which had less meaning in my youth and a lot more meaning now. It was one of my dad's: 'I was complaining about my journey until I saw my sister walking with no shoes; I was complaining about my shoes until I saw my sister with no feet.' I've changed the gender in that phrase because I want young women to think into the future of their 'sisters' and their journey. While in the USA, I met a woman who is part of the 50x50 group—advocating for fifty per cent of leadership positions to be held by women by 2050. I sure hope it happens around the world before then. I'll be 90 years old and that's way too long to wait.
In the meantime, I look forward to the next chapter of my life—a time line from daughter to mother to teacher to sweet manufacturer—everybody knows about my fudge business—to volunteer in India to politician. I wonder what will be next, though I am grateful for the journey so far.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 8, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I thank the government for its cooperation and indeed thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development for the cooperative way we've been working on these issues. When it comes to issues of aviation, we have tried to ensure as much bipartisanship as possible. What that requires is a bit of compromise and perhaps not getting everything that you want—indeed, this legislation, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019, doesn't go as far as Labor would go if we were the government. But it is an important step forward. What we are trying to do here today is to facilitate the passage of this legislation so that it can be considered by the Senate and come into operation as soon as possible.
Of course, there is no margin for error when it comes to aviation safety. It's that simple. Another responsibility of the parliament is, of course, the need to avoid unnecessary red tape getting in the way of business activity. Business drives economic growth. It creates jobs and supports our standard of living. Aviation is an important business, particularly in regional communities. What this legislation does is go to the issue of general aviation. There has been a lot of concern from operators of general aviation about the regulatory burden that is placed upon them.
There was a very successful conference held in Wagga Wagga, in the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I had the opportunity to speak and to engage with the sector there. This legislation that's before the parliament now arose out of some of the recommendations from that conference. It doesn't go as far as some would like, but I believe that it is certainly a step forward, balancing the need to protect the travelling public and, of course, the desirability of ensuring that economic activity can occur.
The regulatory burden for an RPT service run by a Qantas or a Virgin or a Rex is very different from the regulatory burden that can be imposed on a small operator or on general aviation. To maintain that business in place is important, particularly in communities such as those in the member for Maranoa's electorate. It is really important for a range of services that general aviation is able to operate, because many of those routes simply aren't commercial for the big players.
What we've tried to do is to move forward the agenda. This bill before us, as I said, is in my view not perfect, but I'm not going to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and the practical, which is why I have supported this legislation.
We always take a bipartisan approach to the issue of transport safety. On the issue of the safety of the travelling public, we must work together because these issues should not be partisan in this parliament. The way that we've facilitated the bringing on of this bill is an example of that.
Aviation is absolutely crucial in the 21st century. One of the things that we've seen in recent times—unlike when I was younger—is that aviation is five times more affordable today than it was 25 years ago. There are very few industries that you can point to where that is the case. The fact is that these days people will regularly go interstate to watch their football team or netball team or other sporting event without it being a big deal. The first time I hopped on a jet plane was to come here as a ministerial staffer. Before then I'd never been on jet plane in my life, and that wasn't uncommon for people of my generation. The fact is that aviation is now much more available, and the general aviation sector is the backbone of broader aviation. From balloons to microlights, helicopters to business jets, hobbyists to professional pilots, general aviation directly employs more than 3½ thousand Australians. It performs essential services such as charter flights, search and rescue, firefighting, surveying and aerial photography, life-saving aeromedical care and aircraft maintenance.
It's also an important training ground for the nation's pilots, and that's why the former federal Labor government, in which I had the privilege of serving as aviation minister, delivered the first ever aviation white paper. One of its stated objectives was the 'maintenance of a safe, efficient and innovative general aviation sector'. This document provided a comprehensive, balanced framework, bringing together all aspects of aviation policy into a single, coherent and forward-looking statement. In particular, we introduced more generous accelerated depreciation rates for aircraft as an incentive for owners to upgrade their aircraft. We reduced the number of 24-hour restricted airspace areas from 81 to 15, we committed to the continued operation and growth of secondary capital city airports, we ensured the master plan of secondary airports maintained a strong focus on aviation development, not non-aeronautical uses that could compromise future aviation activities, and we reduced the financial burden of regulation on the sector by restricting increases in CASA regulatory service charges to rises in the consumer price index.
I understand general aviation's importance to our nation and I'm optimistic about its prospects for expansion. In recent times, a section of the general aviation sector has expressed concern that CASA's strong focus on safety has created a situation where the sector is over-regulated. There has been a push for legislative recognition in the Civil Aviation Act that CASA should not consider just safety but also the effect of safety regulation on businesses. Last July, we held the summit in Wagga Wagga, which was addressed by Minister McCormack. My point was that safety must always come first and that we must work together. We must recognise that regulators, as well as the minister, face intense pressures in bearing the responsibility for aviation safety, and I certainly felt it when I was the minister. I know from discussions with Minister McCormack that he had considered these matters very carefully before bringing forward this legislation. I have tried to consult with a range of organisations over this legislation and reform.
The bill amends the Civil Aviation Act to ensure that when CASA develops and promulgates aviation safety standards it takes into consideration the impacts and costs affecting the aviation sector. Existing regulatory practice is already based on that approach, but the bill incorporates the existing regulatory practice in the legislation, therefore making it very clear that these issues are important. The bill doesn't change CASA's responsibility to make safety its most important consideration, but what it does do is codify in the legislation the expectation of this parliament that CASA, when creating regulation, will take into account the reasonable expectations of those who are regulated.
For some in the aviation sector, this bill won't go far enough, and I accept that. But it does take an important step in the right direction. It's a sign of progress in an area where any change must be carefully considered, and that's why it has been the subject of broad support across the sector. For example, Regional Air Express, the airline that services much of regional Australia said in a statement:
Regional Express (Rex) welcomes the proposed amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1998 which requires the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to consider the economic and cost impact, in the development and promulgation of aviation safety standards, on individuals, businesses and the community and to take into account the differing risks associated with different aviation sectors.
In closing, I thank the minister for his cooperation on this issue. The job of transport minister is a difficult one. I hope to be able to experience that again the next time this parliament sits. But, in government or opposition, I would say that I want to work with my counterpart when it comes to transport issues and, in particular, when it comes to aviation safety. That's why we've agreed on just one speaker a side in order to fast-track the passage of this legislation so it can get to the Senate. I commend the legislation to the House.
I thank the member for Grayndler. The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 is an important bill. Australia has an outstanding aviation safety record due to our strong regulatory framework. However, we need to continue to keep the balance right between risk and regulation. The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 ensures that CASA continues to consider the economic and cost impacts on industry and communities when developing aviation safety standards. This bill is designed to support a regulatory environment which continues to maintain confidence in the safety of aviation in Australia without unnecessarily restricting innovation and growth. It is important to note that this bill is not intended to, and would not in any way, impede CASA's ability to make operational decisions in relation to safety. CASA must be allowed to ensure aviation in Australia is safe and reliable.
In practical terms, the bill relates to CASA's work in developing and promulgating standards, taking into account the differing risks posed by those sectors and not to individual decisions or directions. The bill will not, for instance, alter CASA's ability to make its recent decision to stop flights of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft on safety grounds. Safety of air navigation will remain the most important consideration of CASA when it develops legislative safety standards. But CASA will also continue to take into consideration the cost—something I know is a key priority for our general aviation sector.
I thank the shadow minister for transport, Anthony Albanese, for his bipartisan support. I am pleased that this bill will support local aviation businesses and communities while ensuring CASA can still do its vital work of keeping us safe in our skies. I'd like to thank honourable members for their constructive contribution to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise in support of the government's Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of presenting a Unit Citation for Gallantry to my constituent, Geoffrey Eaton. Geoff was a private on the front lines during the battles for fire support bases Coral and Balmoral during the Vietnam War. Geoff did me the honour of requesting that I present him with the citation in lieu of his unit's commanding officer.
At the presentation, Geoff told me his story and described some of the harrowing experiences that he went through during those days in 1968. It is impossible for those of us who were not there to fully understand what this bill describes as 'the unique nature of military service and the sacrifice demanded of those who commit to defend our nation'. Geoff tried to describe a little about the effect that his service had on him, when he said:
I didn't talk of it for a long time. A lot of guys had a hard time coming back. I was pretty fortunate, I was looked after there. But later on it came back and bit me.
Geoff has been part of advocating for proper recognition of the actions and the experiences that his comrades went through at Coral and Balmoral. As he said at the presentation, the unit's recognition was 'a long time coming'. I was pleased to have the opportunity to thank Geoff for his service, and I hope that the citation will be of some comfort and pride to Geoff and to the other members of his unit and their families. Geoff's story was another moving reminder for me of how critical it is that we appropriately recognise and acknowledge our veterans' service. I believe that today's bill is another important step, both practical and symbolic, toward proper recognition for all of our former service men and women.
In August last year I held a Fisher veterans forum in my electorate at the Caloundra RSL. I invited Senator Jim Molan to take part in the forum. The veterans that we spoke with were passionate about the importance of service and the ADF. They were modest about their contributions and, most importantly, they were passionate about supporting one another. When it came to the help that they wanted from government, the message was loud and clear. Veterans want the support that we provide to be straightforward to access, and they want practical, pragmatic solutions. It is clear from this concise and well-designed bill that the government has heard that feedback. It has created a Veterans' Recognition Program that is indeed practical and straightforward. I want to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for his efficient and committed work on this matter.
The bill before the House has two aspects. One sets out clearly in legislation the commitment that the Commonwealth government owes to veterans in return for their selfless service to our country. The second sets up the legislative framework for some of the government's simple and practical measures to aid in veterans' further recognition in the community. The first aspect, part 2, lays out the minimum that veterans can expect from our community in return for their service. The second aspect, part 3, sets up the means for our community to go further.
Service to our nation is, at the best of times, exacting and tough. It imposes great discipline, and even in peacetime exposes men and women to risks that are not faced in civilian life. Service in peacetime requires the sacrifice of time, of freedom, of comforts and of family. It can involve long stretches away from home, in unfamiliar and, in some places, hostile situations. As we have seen recently in the Queensland floods, it can require a willingness to go into situations which others are seeking to flee and to deal with the worst that nature can do to ordinary people. It is physically demanding, emotionally tough and psychologically stressful.
In times of conflict, on deployment, another layer of sacrifice—hard for civilians like me to imagine—is imposed on them. Few of us understand what it is to intentionally risk our lives. Few know how it feels to be vulnerable to armed attack or to watch close friends and colleagues be injured or even killed. Service men and women in conflict zones live with constant stress and privation from the luxuries of home. They can be required to deal with the worst of human suffering and to operate effectively in almost impossible situations. It is clear that these experiences, these sacrifices, are like nothing else in a person's life.
It is therefore right that the government recognises and acknowledges in this bill the uniqueness of that sacrifice. It is absolutely right that the government acknowledges that those who return from service of this kind may need special support with their health, with getting new employment and housing, and with enjoying some of the day-to-day activities in which we all take part.
We owe our service men and women a great debt. It is right that the government, with this bill, acknowledges that in fulfilling that debt it must provide the care and support that veterans need to participate in education or employment or to achieve economic wellbeing and sustainability. This represents, I believe, the government's acknowledgement of the least that we can do.
The second part of the bill provides the government with the ability to go further. By authorising the production of visible symbols of service, including the lapel pin and veterans card, which will form part of the coalition government's veterans recognition program, we will make it easier for individuals and organisations to provide extra acknowledgement in veterans' day-to-day lives. This may be as simple as a thankyou in the street or a seat given up on the train, but it might include discounts, concessions or other special offers made by businesses and organisations in the community.
With the proposed covenant, a uniquely Australian oath in its unpretentious simplicity, this bill also provides a means for all of us to buy into these same commitments. Alongside our government, alongside businesses and community groups, the covenant gives ordinary Australians the opportunity to give thanks and to acknowledge the debt we all owe to our service men and women.
I've sought in my own way, in my electorate of Fisher, to create more opportunities to acknowledge our veterans, and in the process I have encountered one of the very challenges that this bill will overcome. On 11 October last year, I held the first of what I hope will be an annual Sunshine Coast veterans day. I worked closely with Fisher icon Australia Zoo to provide free entry to the zoo for a day for all veterans and their partners. I received significant support from local RSLs, especially including the nearby Glasshouse Country RSL subbranch, and from local veterans organisation Wet Vets. Mates4Mates held their regular coffee catch-up at Australia Zoo, and, in total, hundreds of former service men and women visited the zoo to enjoy their unique wildlife experiences throughout the day. I'm grateful to Wes Mannion and Bill Ferguson of Australia Zoo and to Jamie Hope of Wet Vets for helping me organise the day. It was a wonderful experience, and I hope that we'll have many more such Sunshine Coast veterans days in my electorate in the years to come.
However, one of the challenges that Australia Zoo and I faced in organising the Sunshine Coast veterans day was appropriately identifying veterans. Without a universal identification card, it was difficult to create a clear and appropriate means of confirming their status. We had no desire to challenge veterans or to grill them on their service, nor did we want any confusion among the zoo's many ticket desk workers as to the eligibility for the scheme. In the end, it was necessary to trust to common sense and to the community's goodwill.
The provision in the bill before us today for a single, clearly marked veterans card will make this process significantly easier for everyone in future years. The veterans card, the veterans covenant and the lapel pin are simple, practical and timely measures that will enable our community and local businesses to get behind the recognition of veterans and to easily offer them the thanks that they deserve. I urge them to do just that.
Before I close, I want to acknowledge the work of my constituent Graeme Mickelberg and his son, the hardworking state member for Buderim, Brent Mickelberg. Graeme and Brent both served in the Australian Army and have been tireless proponents of greater recognition for veterans for many years. Brent has consistently highlighted the challenges of transition for recent veterans and has spoken movingly in the Queensland parliament about the post-traumatic stress disorder which made his own return to civilian life so difficult.
Graeme is a passionate man whose insistence and tenacious advocacy are impossible to ignore. After 40 years of service as an infantry officer at home and overseas, he is as knowledgeable as he is determined, and he deserves a great deal of credit for helping to bring about the bill before us today. As far back as May 2013, he wrote in the Sunshine Coast's Hinterland Times that Australia would be well served to consider:
… a military covenant that recognises the unique nature of military service and enhances the respect accorded to Defence Force members and veterans.
Since then, both Graeme and Brent have joined me in Canberra to meet with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and have been a very active part of supporting the development of this veterans' recognition program. I know that Graeme and Brent will be following today's debate very closely. I want to thank them for their hard work on behalf of veterans on the Sunshine Coast and all over Australia.
I also want to make a big shout-out to Win Fowles, another of my constituents and the vice-president of the Sunshine Coast Defence Force Welfare Association chapter. When I first became the federal member for Fisher, three years ago, Win was one of the first people I met with. He has taken me through many of the trials and tribulations that Defence Force veterans face on a daily basis. I know that Win has also been instrumentally involved in the creation of the military covenant.
On behalf of my colleagues and everyone here today, I'd like to honour all of those on the Sunshine Coast, and in fact all over Australia, who serve or have served in our nation's armed forces. We thank you for your service. We remember their families, who have lived with separation and often with fear of what may come. This bill contains not only a landmark acknowledgement on behalf of the government of Australia of our responsibility to honour that service but also practical steps to help our community to go further. In the words of the new Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant:
For what they have done, this we will do.
I commend the bill to the House.
I start my contribution to the debate on this bill by taking the opportunity, like the member before me, to acknowledge the veterans who live in my own community. We are obviously out at all sorts of events and occasions where we meet people in our community who are veterans of both military and peacekeeping activities—far fewer, obviously, from very early conflicts, but particularly ranging from Vietnam veterans to veterans of current, modern-day conflicts. We see them and their families out and about in our communities all the time. I think it is a significant and important thing, where we can, to take the opportunity to thank them for their service, both the service personnel and the families that support them. In that spirit, I want to indicate my support for the bill before the parliament today, the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019.
The intention of the bill is to provide a framework for government, business and the community to recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and to support veterans and their families. I believe a very important part of the bill is to establish the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. As members in this chamber would be aware, the concept of a covenant was announced by our side of the parliament, by Labor, in September last year. Our proposed military covenant would cover both current and ex-serving personnel and their families, recognising the immense commitment that they make in serving our country and formalising our nation's commitment to look after those who have sacrificed for the nation.
We're pleased that the government has adopted the covenant via this bill. That being said, we note that the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant as proposed in the bill only covers those who have served and their loved ones. We feel that, by leaving out those currently serving, the government is missing a significant element. Whilst it's obviously important that we acknowledge those who have served, we believe that's only part of the picture. Labor's military covenant includes an annual reporting mechanism in the form of a statement to the parliament on how the government is meeting its obligations to current and ex-serving personnel. Sadly, that's also absent in the bill today. So we have some concerns about the omission of those two elements. In that spirit, we have referred the legislation to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The intention of that is to ensure that members of the ex-serving community have been consulted and are comfortable with the provisions.
Having made the point about those two particular aspects, we were very acutely aware of how much or how little sitting time the parliament had before a likely election, so we requested that the committee return their bill quickly. It reported back on 22 March, recommending that the bill be passed. So, on that basis, we will not be moving any amendments to the legislation; however, we do continue to believe there is merit in including current serving members and strengthening the legislation by including a report-back element.
In addition to the introduction of a covenant, the bill inserts a general recognition clause, which acknowledges the unique nature of military service, the demands that we place on those who serve, the additional support that they require post service and the Commonwealth's commitment to supporting veterans. We wholeheartedly support this recommendation and this recognition and our ongoing obligation to support those who put their lives on hold for service to our country. As an extension of this general recognition, the bill also includes an overarching statement in relation to the beneficial nature of Veterans' Affairs portfolio legislation, making it clear that the veterans' affairs legislation has a beneficial purpose and should be interpreted accordingly. This section will provide that the Commonwealth be committed to decision-makers interpreting legislation in a way that benefits veterans and their families, where that interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the provision, while the intent of this section is to state that where a provision in the acts and instruments under these acts can be interpreted beneficially it should be.
Of course, not all provisions in the acts and instruments are intended to be beneficial in nature—for example, the recovery of debts to the Commonwealth and provisions protecting the Commonwealth from fraud. Departmental training will be developed to ensure decision-makers understand and appropriately apply the beneficial legislation to support the intent of this clause. In addition, a paragraph will also be inserted that will provide that claims decisions will be made within a time that's proportionate to the complexity of the matter, acknowledging the variety of complex client claims and that there will be differences in time lines. One of the most common complaints about the Department of Veterans' Affairs is the lengthy and complex claims process, so any commitment to time lines will be welcomed by the veteran and ex-serving community.
Finally, this bill before us provides recognition to veterans and their families in the form of a lapel pin, cards and other artefacts. Fundamentally, the bill seeks to provide greater recognition for veterans by government, and it acknowledges the unique nature of military service and the obligation to those who have served. Labor's commitment to those who have served or who serve is rock solid, and, as such, we welcome changes which increase recognition for veterans and their loved ones. Of course, we await the outcome of the Senate inquiry with interest; however, we support the principle of this bill and the acknowledgement of those who have served that it encapsulates.
I have to say that, after the budget last night, I had hoped that the government would give more explanation of the fact that the budget has made a $171.6 million cut to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I think people will, quite rightly, be wanting to know how that will impact on veterans and ex-service personnel. Within the context of the bill before us, I put the question: should there be an explanation of what the implications of that cut are?
In the time left to me I want to acknowledge some locals who have spent decades upon decades at the front line supporting returning personnel, and that, of course, is our wonderful Returned and Services Leagues across the country. In the past few months I have had the immense honour to attend two centenary anniversary events of local RSLs. Firstly, the Wollongong RSL turned 100. We had a great lunch, organised by their executive. I want to acknowledge their president, Peter Poulton AM, who has been the president since 1997, Joe Davidson, who has been honorary secretary since 2008, Derek Howard, who has been honorary treasurer since 2010, vice-president welfare, Noel Jackson, and vice-president social, Darren Wheeler. This RSL was founded in 1915, but its charter was issued on 19 February 1919. The sub-branch is now located at the City Diggers club and they have current membership of 141. They're very busy in our community. Just during 2018, for example, they made 33 visits to ailing and sick members in hospitals, nursing homes and private homes, attended to 38 welfare and pension requests for assistance, conducted eight RSL funerals for deceased veterans and amassed volunteer hours totalling 2,432 in attending to those duties. They are now responsible for the Illawarra district Anzac Day commemoration march. The honorary secretary arranges and MCs the Anzac Day dawn service, VP day, Remembrance Day and Anzac Day in Schools program. This is a really important and appreciated function for our young people in our schools. I've been to some of them and have seen how much they value that work. The sub-branch receives strong support from Bravo Company 4/3 RNSWR, based at Gwynneville. I acknowledge Captain Nick Kenter OC and Navy personnel from the Australian Hydrographic Office. I particularly acknowledge Commodore Fiona Freeman OC, based in Wollongong. Bravo Company provides personnel for cenotaph commemorative services and catafalque parties. Both arms support our Anzac Day activities. We are often able to arrange for a RAN ship to be berthed in Port Kembla for Anzac Day, providing one is available. The sub-branch sponsors patrol vessel HMAS Wollongong, based in Cairns, and 2nd Commando Regiment, when on deployment overseas. It was fabulous to come together to celebrate their 100th anniversary. I thank them very much for the honour of joining them. It has been my commitment to continue to work with them.
I also attended the centenary of the Woonona Bulli RSL, another fabulous local organisation. I want to acknowledge their executive: the president, Michael Paris; vice-presidents Garry May and Peter Pioro; honorary secretary, Phillip Williams; honorary treasurer, Leslie Ledwidge; welfare and pensions, Peter Pioro; welfare and assets, Peter Bailey; and patrons Kevin Whitehead and Peter Bailey. We had a fabulous lunch with the Woonona Bulli RSL, which not only celebrated the achievements that they have made over 100 years but also reflected a very strong future for the RSL. Mr Craig Blanch, the curator in the Military Heraldry and Technology section of the Australian War Memorial, was a guest speaker. He has curated the permanent exhibition of the Long Tan Cross at the memorial. We also heard from the RSL vice-president, Mr Ray James. They were two of the very welcome guest speakers on the day.
The centenary committee had three sub-branch members putting all the work into it, and what a fantastic job they did: Garry May AM, Michael Paris and Peter Pioro. It was lovely Uncle Richard Archibald and his nephew Peter were there. They conducted a welcome to country and played the didgeridoo. They are on a quest to have Aboriginal service men and women rightfully acknowledged at memorial services across Australia. That is a great initiative, and I certainly acknowledge the Australian War Memorial's work in that space, as well. In that respect, I want to acknowledge all of our Indigenous Australians who are ex-serving personnel. The memorial club—the actual club—provided three members of their staff: Marcela Kohazy, Vanessa Borg and General Manager Michael Brennan. The committee was also helped along the way by various members of the sub-branch.
There was a significant number of official guests—and I was very honoured to be one of them—including, as I mentioned, Mr Ray James, the Vice-President of New South Wales RSL, and his wife, Pauline; Craig Blanch, a senior curator at the War Memorial; Cath Filan, chairperson of the WBRSL memorial club, and Michael Brennan, the general manager of the club, along with Mrs Natalee Brennan. Among the guests were executive members from the Wollongong, Corrimal, Coledale, Albion Park, Warilla, Dapto-Port Kembla and South Hurstville sub-branches, so it was wonderful to see all the sub-branches around the area come together and join with the Woonona Bulli RSL in celebrating this occasion.
Also present, I want to acknowledge, was Mrs Edna Wheatley. Edna is the widow of VC winner Kevin 'Dasher' Wheatley. Edna is a local resident and attends the auxiliary coffee mornings with other windows of our veterans. There is a fantastic display at the club telling the story of Dasher Wheatley, and I've been very pleased that I've been able to get some grants for the club to add to the wonderful exhibition that they have there.
The RSL was built in 1919, obviously to support those returning from war at that time, and it has continued to support people through many conflicts and peacekeeping activities. In 1919, women, unsurprisingly, led the way, through the women's auxiliary and the Regimental Girls, greeting soldiers as they return from war. They were led by Mrs Katherine Herring, who was the founder of the Regimental Girls. That was a core element of the RSL branch's activities—welcoming back veterans.
I want to acknowledge all of those who supported the club. The Woonona-Bulli ambulance division of the St John Ambulance Brigade in 1923 raised money running soup kitchens and so forth; the Diggers Rest Home, since 1959—all of these local activities supported our veterans, upholding that value that we pay honour and respect to them. I thank the House.
I also rise in support of the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. In response to some of the comments made by the member for Cunningham in relation to some concerns about the budget, I do wish to assure the House and the member that this government is absolutely committed to putting veterans first and to putting veterans' families first—which is why we continue to invest in improving the system of care and support available to the veteran community. This year's budget includes a total investment of more than $11½ billion in services and support relied upon by more than 280,000 veterans and their families—an increase of more than $300 million from last year. And we are continuing to fund the largest reform in the Department of Veterans' Affairs' history. This is making it easier and faster for veterans to access the services that they need, when and where they need them.
Veterans play an important part in Australia's national identity, for the service that they have given in defending our nation and putting their lives on the line for their loved ones—their wives and husbands, sons and daughters, family and friends—in defence of our nation. Since early 2018, the government has been working closely with the ex-service organisations to draft a defence covenant, to allow the Australian community to recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and to support veterans and their families. This bill gives Australian veterans the respect and appreciation they deserve from their fellow country men and women, which is one part of the government's recognition package, to recognise and identify veterans in our local communities. This bill will grant veterans in our community exclusive rights and privileges, through acknowledging the distinctive nature of Australia's armed forces in past and current conflicts and assisting ex-service personnel and their families across the country.
The bill contains two key and practical initiatives by which we, as Australians, will be able to recognise our veterans for their commitment to defending our nation. The first aspect of the bill is outlined in schedule 1, which is aptly entitled the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. The covenant finishes with an oath: 'For what they have done, this we will do.' This oath signifies the contribution our veterans have made to the communities and the lifestyle that we live today as well as allowing those who take the oath to reflect on how we can work towards a better Australia for today's generation and also for tomorrow's. This bill envisages that the oath be taken at commemorative ceremonies such Remembrance Day and at other times during the year when we can recognise the achievements and sacrifices of those who have defended our nation and their families.
The other major feature of the bill is the government's introduction of the Veterans' Recognition Program. The program will include the issuing of a veterans' card, a newly-designed veterans' lapel or reservist pin and a print-out of the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. The bill will not change existing entitlements for those who currently receive the Department of Veterans' Affairs gold or white heath cards and orange pharmaceutical card but provides a significant declaration of the Australian government's intention to apply a construction to Veterans' Affairs legislation which is to the benefit of Australian veterans and their families. The veterans' card will be available to anyone who has served in the Australian Army, Navy or Air Force for one day of continuous full-time service. Some reservists will be eligible to receive a veterans' card, although those who are not will receive a reservists' lapel pin.
The government is making it easy for those who currently use the DVA gold or white card to receive the program, where the veterans' card will simply be a redesign and be reissued along with a lapel pin and copy of the covenant to recipients in the coming months. Veterans who currently do not have a DVA health card but are currently eligible will be able to apply through My Service on the DVA website.
The government is currently also in discussion with various business and community organisations about a variety of concessions for veterans, with a list of participating businesses and their discounts and concessions to be made available to the public shortly. There are thousands of veterans in my electorate of Robertson, all of whom will be able to receive the government's recognition package over the next few months. This will provide significant concessions and benefits for local veterans. I look forward to working with local businesses and RSLs in providing support and recognition for our ex service men and women.
As this bill describes, the government is supporting the family members of veterans through the recognition package. This will benefit members of Brisbane Water Legacy, located at Port Frederick in my electorate of Robertson. I would like to acknowledge the significant distribution that Legacy makes to the lives of 1,400 widows in our local community. In particular, I would like to thank the Brisbane Water Legacy board of directors, including the President, Max Davis; the Vice-President and deputy chairman, John George; the Finance Director, Tony Morton; and the CEO and company Secretary, Peter Lawley. The facilities and welfare programs they are able to provide means veterans, widows and their families are provided with comfort and support when they need it most. I hope to continue to work alongside them as this government delivers this package in recognition of their sacrifice for their country.
In closing, Australian veterans deserve recognition for all they have done in defending not only the land on which we live but the values we stand for as Australians. This bill will be part of our government's commitment to those who have served Australia gallantly and the families they have supported along the way. This government is absolutely committed to putting veterans and their families first, which is why we continue to invest in improving the system of care and support available to the veteran community. I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the bill now be read a second time. I call my good friend and fellow equine enthusiast the member for Moreton.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been a pleasure to be in the parliament with you. You have been a credit to the parliament and the people you represent, and I wish you all the best in your future endeavours. I hope to maybe catch up with you for a beer if we can find time in the future.
I rise to speak on the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. This bill creates a new act which will provide a framework for government, business and the community to recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and support veterans and their families—something all sides of parliament would support. Importantly, this bill establishes the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. In September last year, the Australian Labor Party, under our leader Bill Shorten, announced the establishment of a military covenant, and I commend the many who were involved in that process including the member for Corio and the shadow minister at the table, the member for Lingiari.
Our proposed military covenant would cover both current and ex-serving personnel and their families, recognising the immense commitment they make to serve their country and formalising our nation's commitment to look after those who have sacrificed for their nation. And that is something that every new politician would recognise when they come to Parliament House and stand at the steps and turn around and look down Anzac Parade towards the War Memorial. The designers knew we should always have that ultimate sacrifice and the danger we put our military in in our mind when making our political decisions. So Labor is pleased to see the Morrison government adopt the covenant via this bill.
That said, we do note that the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant covers only those who have served—past tense—and their loved ones. By leaving out the currently serving members, the Morrison government is missing a significant element. While it's important that we acknowledge those who have served, we believe that this is only part of the picture. In addition, Labor's military covenant included annual reporting in the form of a statement to the parliament on how the government of the day is meeting its obligations to current and ex-serving personnel. Sadly, this is also absent in the bill before the House today. The Labor Party has some concerns about the omission of these two elements. Why forget those soldiers, sailors and airmen who are wearing uniform today? In relation to the other element that's missing, why be scared of publicly stating whether the government of the day is meeting the KPIs that it has set itself? As such, Labor referred the legislation to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to ensure that members of the ex-serving community had been consulted and were comfortable with the provisions of the legislation brought into the chamber today.
That said, Labor is acutely aware that there are perhaps not many more sitting days before we will be in the middle of an election campaign. Being pragmatic, we therefore requested the committee return its report before we resumed sitting. That committee reported on 22 March and recommended that the bill be passed. Therefore, Labor will not be moving any amendments to the legislation. However, we continue to believe there is merit in including current serving members and in strengthening the legislation by including a reporting back element. There's a saying in business: 'If it's not measurable, it doesn't exist.' In addition to the introduction of a covenant, this bill inserts a general recognition clause which acknowledges the unique nature of military service, the demands we place on those who serve, the additional support they may require post service and the Commonwealth's commitment to supporting these veterans. This is why we have a different military justice system: there is a different expectation in the military in terms of things like honour, service, commitment, bravery and sacrifice—concepts that there is not always an oversupply of in this building perhaps, and perhaps in every other workforce.
In addition to the introduction of a covenant, this bill inserts a general recognition clause which acknowledges the unique nature of military service. Labor wholeheartedly supports this recognition and our ongoing obligation to support those who have put their lives on hold in service to our country. As an extension of this general recognition, the bill also includes an overarching statement in relation to the beneficial nature of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio legislation, making it clear that the Veterans' Affairs legislation has a beneficial purpose and should be interpreted accordingly. This is a clear message to those dry economists and cold-hearted bean counters, who might perhaps be working at the Productivity Commission. I mean no disrespect to them—they do good work—but I question some of their recent analysis when it comes to veterans and the special place they have in Australian society.
This section will provide that the Commonwealth is committed to decision-makers interpreting legislation in a way that benefits veterans and their families where that interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the provision. The intent of this section is to state that, where a provision in the acts and instruments under these acts can be interpreted beneficially, it should be. Of course, not all provisions in these acts and instruments are intended to be beneficial in nature. Obviously, if the Commonwealth is coming after a person to recover debts, that's not particularly beneficial for the person owing the debt, but it is beneficial for the Commonwealth. That also applies to provisions protecting the Commonwealth from fraud and the like. Departmental training will be developed to ensure decision-makers understand and appropriately apply the beneficial legislation to support the intent of this clause.
In addition, a paragraph will be inserted that will provide that claims decisions will be made within a time that is proportionate to the complexity of the matter. That said, I have certainly had constituents sitting in front of me who have had complex claims that involve old military records that may be missing—lost or misplaced—or misunderstood, so there is always going to be a difference in time lines. But, as any MP who has represented their constituents would know, justice delayed can be justice denied, and that concept can also apply to low-level administrative decisions, which can have big implications for veterans and their families.
One of the most common complaints about the Department of Veterans' Affairs is the lengthy and complex claims process. We have seen many white hairs handed out to people at RSLs around the country as they support their members to go through that process. So a commitment to timeliness will be welcomed by the veteran and ex-serving community, I'm sure.
Finally, this bill will also provide recognition to veterans and their families in the form of lapel pins, cards and other such items. Fundamentally, this bill seeks to provide greater recognition for veterans by the government and acknowledges the unique nature of military service and our obligation to those who have served—and, as I said, it should extend to those who are serving. Labor's commitment to those who serve or have served is rock-solid and, as such, we welcome changes that increase recognition for veterans and their loved ones.
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. We should not be complacent about our defence forces and those who are called to serve—the soldiers, sailors and airmen. We need to look after them while they're serving and obviously we need to look after them—and all those associated with their service—when they return.
I'd like to particularly mention our Returned and Services League, and its many associated entities, and the great work it does in supporting both current and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force and their families. I've got five RSL clubs in my electorate of Moreton: the Sherwood-Indooroopilly, Salisbury, Stephens, Sunnybank and Yeronga-Dutton Park branches. There are a few other returned service associations as well. I've spent quite a bit of time with the men and women associated with these clubs over the years, especially in the lead-up to the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings and a couple of other community projects that I've been proud to be connected with.
The RSL has a proud tradition of helping, going back over 100 years. It has been one of our most respected national organisations ever since it was founded, back in 1916. As well as supporting and serving our ex-service men and women, the modern RSL also promotes a secure, stable and progressive Australia. We are indebted to the RSL for the services it continues to provide, not only directly to the returned service men and women but indirectly through the great community work that it does—not just a quiet listening ear but also that helping hand.
In particular, I'm going to mention my Sunnybank RSL and the great work that they do with their local community, which has seen an influx of Chinese Australians, a Chinese diaspora, over the years. As the make-up of the community changed, they decided to create a memorial for all the people of Chinese heritage who have served Australia in past wars—soldiers such as Billy Sing and Caleb Shang, who fought in World War I and sometimes had to lie about their citizenship to actually put on their soldiers uniform, and Jack Wong Sue, who served for Australia in World War II. That's just to name a few brave service personnel. Often these people were shot at and put in harm's way but, when they returned, weren't even able to vote in the country they called home. These are great stories of courage and bravery from the Chinese Australian diaspora, and they've been commemorated by this memorial at Sunnybank.
I've told the story in this chamber before, but I'll tell it again because it's important that we always remind those who try to divide that we have never, ever had a monocultural Australia. We've always had people from a variety of different nations who have come together to form this modern Australia. Private Billy Sing was a sniper with the 5th Australian Light Horse Regiment. He was a kangaroo shooter from Northern Queensland originally. He went over to Gallipoli and is conservatively credited by military historians with killing more than 150 people at Gallipoli. He was known to his fellow soldiers as 'The Assassin'. He was known throughout the world, in fact. He was quite a celebrity at the time and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for conspicuous gallantry, as a sniper, at Anzac. To this day, the Australian Army snipers recognise the skill of Billy Sing.
So we built a physical memorial, and there's also one on the north side of Brisbane at the Nundah Cemetery. It was a labour of love for people of Chinese-Australian heritage in my community, and it has contributed to stronger links between that community and the local RSL—recognising that things have changed. It is a great physical reminder, but there is also an ongoing bursary. The diversity, cooperation, understanding and friendship that exists on Brisbane's Southside goes a long way to recognising some of the slights and racism that existed 100 years ago, when people were allowed to fight and die for their country but were not able to own land if they were not seen to be British—or Australian, I suppose, but British was actually the law of the land. Why? Simply because they looked Chinese. So, whilst this is just a physical memorial, the ongoing bursaries—connecting with local school students, where they enter an essay competition and tell their own family story—are recognised every year on Anzac Day, and there is a cash prize.
I also want to point out that the success of the Chinese war memorial has flowed elsewhere and has inspired commemorations and contributions from other communities. Now we've seen the Indian community come together with a project to erect a memorial for the Australian-Indian service men and women who have contributed to Australian war efforts in the past and who continue to do so. The Indian-Australian community and the Chinese-Australian community are helping to tell those stories of their service personnel. There will be bursaries associated with that. It is important that we show this permanent respect for those brave Australians who put on military uniforms. Sadly, military service personnel are not always shown the respect that they need. We've got a bit more work to do there, but we do have a modern military that looks more and more like modern Australia. I've mentioned the Sunnybank RSL in particular and I commend Hugh Polson, the president, and all of his team for the great work they've done working with Chinese-Australians and Indian-Australians and the service men and women who are part of that organisation.
Returning to the bill currently before the House, I do look to put on the record clearly that the Labor Party does support this bill, but I do say that the acknowledgement of those who have served and their families is something that both sides of the chamber will always support. I'm happy to commend this bill to the House.
While many important reforms take time, and no responsible legislation should ever be rushed without detailed, thoughtful consideration, the concept of an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant has been discussed and has enjoyed the support of key stakeholders and peak representative bodies for quite some time. The Liberal National Party in Queensland, of which I am a proud member, has a strong and, indeed, long record of ably and consistently advocating for the interests of veterans in my home state. I recall that I, together with my LNP parliamentary colleagues, both state and federal, voted unanimously in favour of an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant at our party's annual convention on no fewer than two separate occasions over the last five years.
An Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant is organic Liberal National Party policy. This is a genuine grassroots reform, comprehensively endorsed by party members. It is a reform that enjoys not only the support of veterans but also support from the wider community, especially in Queensland, where you are likely to see more 'Thank you for your service' stickers on the backs of cars, trucks and utes than anywhere else in Australia. The combined voices of key veterans groups, Liberal National Party members and many right across the wider community have been speaking out on this issue—all asking for special recognition for our veterans and their families.
At times, the champions of this cause must have felt frustrated and may have thought that nobody was listening. Well, Deputy Speaker, I can tell you who was listening to that groundswell, that persistent agitation on the issue: the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and, more significantly, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister took prompt action to make an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant a priority, leading to a joint media statement with the minister on 27 November last year, where the Prime Minister announced that this Liberal-National government would develop a covenant to be enacted in legislation to recognise the unique nature of military service and to better support veterans and their families.
Despite the usual reckless and unfounded scaremongering from the Labor Party, this Liberal-National government is absolutely committed to putting veterans and their families first, which is why in this federal budget we have invested more than $11.5 billion in the services and support mechanisms that are relied upon by more than 280,000 veterans and their families. This is a real increase in funding of more than $300 million on last year. This government is focused on making it easier and faster for veterans to access the services they need and deserve when and where they need them. The veteran recognition program and the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant are part of that commitment. The Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant will provide a lasting opportunity for all Australians, and especially the business community, to recognise the service of all veterans who have served, even so much as one day, as members of the Australian Defence Force. This bill is part of a long-anticipated recognition package for veterans and their families. The purpose of the bill is to permanently acknowledge and formally thank veterans and their families for the unique commitment and sacrifice they have made, and in many cases continue to make, in the service of Australia, defending those precious freedoms we so value as a nation.
As part of the joint media statement last year by the Prime Minister and minister, entitled 'Recognising and respecting our veterans', it was announced that a unique veteran card, replacing the DVA health card, together with a special lapel pin would be introduced. The intention of these mechanisms is to ensure that we as a community are providing due recognition to those who are prepared to stand and defend our nation.
I want to finish, if I may, by paying tribute to the many people who have fought to see this change made. I wish to acknowledge the tireless advocacy over many years of Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Graeme Mickelberg of the Sunshine Coast, together with Mr John Lowis and Mr Wynn Fowles of the Defence Force Welfare Association. These people never gave up on an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant to better acknowledge and protect the needs of veterans and their families. With this in mind, I commend the bill to the House.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Well, here I am again, back to the future. I stand here today to fight this out-of-touch LNP government's budget, as I have done for the last two LNP budgets. Not one new cent for Townsville, but the cuts are still there, writ large. This is the sixth budget delivered by the LNP, and, once again, Townsville is no better off. Townsville's unemployment has almost doubled under the LNP. There is not one new commitment, not one cent to be delivered to Townsville for at least two years under this disgraceful budget. This is not good enough. Townsville needs jobs now, not in two years. The LNP have included the Townsville stadium, a commitment that is three years old. This disgraceful LNP government cannot repackage three-year-old commitments and try to sell them to the people of Townsville. We deserve our fair share.
There is no plan for wages growth, no plan to tackle power prices and no plan for secure jobs in Townsville. Townsville just gets cut after cut in this budget. A cut of $8.9 million to the Townsville hospital—that's 25 nurses' jobs gone. There are millions cut to Townsville public schools, $171.6 million to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and a $3 billion cut to TAFE; the LNP cuts have already cost Townsville 46 per cent of our apprentices. There is no money for hydro power on the Burdekin Falls Dam, no money for increasing naval ship maintenance and no money for The Oasis Townsville, a veterans' hub. There is no money for disaster recovery resilience.
I will fight tooth and nail against this— (Time expired)
I would like to update the House on the cashless debit card trial outcomes that we're seeing in the Goldfields region of my electorate of O'Connor.
I'm very pleased that yesterday this House passed the 12-month extension to the cashless debit card trial, with some amendments proposed by the member for Barton. This card has always had the flexibility for people to be granted an exemption, and I welcome any enhancements to the benefit of anyone who can demonstrate that they don't need to be on the card.
But I'll take this opportunity to give a shout-out to my friends from the Shire of Coolgardie, who were to be here in the gallery today but they've obviously been held up: CEO, James Trail, and president, Mal Cullen. They've just arrived—good to see you! They're here to tell people just how well the card is working.
Yesterday, they did try to meet with the member for Barton but, unfortunately, she had to cancel their appointment. But I'm going to share the good news, which includes documented evidence that this trial is working. In February this year, The University of Adelaide released its cashless debit card baseline data report, which supports feedback from the shires of Coolgardie, Laverton, Leonora, Menzies and the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. It documented positive impacts on the level of alcohol use and associated behaviours; early improvements to child welfare and wellbeing; changes in spending on household items; improvements to financial literacy and management; and positive impacts on crime, family violence and other antisocial behaviours.
The Kalgoorlie-Boulder Chamber of Commerce and Industry provided a submission to the recent inquiry into the card, and 87 per cent of respondents said that they believed there were positive changes and that they wanted to see the trial continue.
In 2016, I stood with our community to stop the New South Wales Liberal government from selling off Wyong Hospital. Before being elected, I worked at Wyong Hospital for 10 years. Our community hospital matters to the people it cares for and to the dedicated staff who care for them. Due to the overwhelming community campaign, supported by the union movement, the New South Wales government had no choice but to back down on its privatisation plans.
Unfortunately, it appears that the New South Wales Liberals have not backed away from their user-pays approach to running our hospitals. At Gosford Hospital, the Liberal government has entered a five-year lease agreement with private parking company, Secure Parking, which will result in that company profiting to the tune of $1.9 million from the patients, carers and health workers of the coast. The New South Wales Liberal government policy on parking at hospitals means that Wyong Hospital will soon face parking fees for the first time. Wyong Hospital has never charged for parking. Wyong Hospital has very limited public transport.
At Gosford Hospital, staff are now being forced to pay over $1,200 a year to park at work, and visitors $19.90 per day or $6.70 an hour. This is more than at the John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle and more than at North Gosford Private Hospital.
I will fight parking fees being introduced at our community hospital in Wyong. The New South Wales Liberals have to stop privatising parking at our public hospitals. I call on the New South Wales Liberal government to reverse this decision and to keep free parking at Wyong Hospital.
I've had the great satisfaction of having Prime Minister Morrison in my electorate, in the great suburb of Pakenham, which I've now had in my electorate for less than 12 months under the redistribution. He announced a $70 million upgrade to Racecourse Road, which is basically the missing link, with an extra lane going between the Princes Freeway and Henry Street. It will now connect to the fully funded Healesville-Koo Wee Rup Road, with an extra lane added in each direction between the Princes Freeway and Manx Road, announced in last night's budget. The Racecourse Road section will also see traffic lights being built at Bald Hill Road and Racecourse Road, and an upgrade to the freeway overpass.
So it's a huge win for the 20,000 residents. This comes on top of the $13 million we've committed again for the McGregor Road and Pakenham bypass interchange. The other great news is that the $500 million we committed back in March 2016 for the stage through to the Monash will start, with the extension of O'Sheas Road onto the Beaconsfield interchange. We also announced the funding to remove eight dangerous intersections along the Princes Highway at Beaconsfield and Pakenham. The local council will match that with $18 million.
We're now very focused on upgrading Kangan Drive and also an extra lane on Clyde Road, going over the Monash. We also need some car parks on this road. (Time expired)
After six years of cuts and chaos, last night's budget has confirmed that Braddon will be better off under Labor. For all of the key priorities for our region, Labor has a better plan: health, education, TAFE apprenticeships, tax cuts, jobs and economic growth. The coalition have copied Labor's personal tax cuts, but they are so out of touch that they have given a smaller tax cut to people earning less than $40,000 a year, and Braddon has some of the lowest wages in the nation. Yet again, these people have been ignored. Labor will fix this inequity.
The budget does nothing to fix Tasmania's health crisis, caused by years of Liberal cuts. It locks in cuts to hospitals, fails to address the elective surgery backlog in Tasmania and fails to fund TAZREACH, a program that ensures visiting medical specialists come to the region to save people time in travelling to see them. Labor will fix this. The budget locks in cuts to Braddon schools, but Labor will fix this. The budget fails to reverse cuts to TAFE and apprenticeships. In Braddon we've lost almost 700 apprentices under this government, but Labor will fix this. Our farmers will also be disappointed by the Liberals, as this budget does not contain one cent for tranche 3 of Tasmania's irrigation projects, but Labor will fix this. This program has the potential to create hundreds of jobs and grow our economy, and Labor will deliver this funding.
I thank the Prime Minister for delivering a budget that clearly shows that Labor is the only choice to fix the key issues in my region.
This week we lost a wonderful Australian, Daphne Dunne, who passed away on Monday at the grand age of 99. Daphne captured the hearts of many of us—in my community, across our nation and, perhaps most famously of all, in the royal palaces of London. Daphne celebrated her 99th birthday just last Friday.
She was the widow of one of our nation's heroes, Albert Chowne VC, MM, who was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery during an engagement with Japanese forces in Papua New Guinea in 1945. In one of those sad twists of fate, Lieutenant Chowne had arranged flowers to be sent to her for her birthday. The roses for his young bride arrived after Chowne was killed and just moments before the fateful news of his death was conveyed to Daphne. It is no surprise that Daphne spent much of her life ensuring the legacy of our veterans is never forgotten.
Daphne became something of an international celebrity because of her affection for Prince Harry, who she met in Australia on several occasions. She was his No. 1 fan, and they established an instant and genuine rapport. Daphne Dunne lived her life to the fullest. In fact, just last year I was amazed to find her at the Sydney Mardi Gras, which she was attending for the first time at the age of 98. Always with a cheeky smile, a story to tell and a grace that was common of many of her generation, she was well known across my community, where she lived. I was proud to call her a friend and, like so many, I mourn her passing today. I send my deepest condolences to her family. Rest in peace, Daphne Dunne.
What a disappointment last night was. It was another Liberal budget where Longman has been left behind by the same Liberal cuts. After six years of Liberal cuts and chaos, what we saw was Prime Minister Scott Morrison's last chance. It was his last chance to reverse the cuts to services that my community relies upon—to reverse the millions of dollars they've slashed from our local schools, like Woodford, Wamuran, Morayfield and Narangba Valley, and to put back the $2.9 million to our Caboolture hospital. It was a chance for him to do that. It was a chance for him to stick up for our local workers by restoring their penalty rates that have been taken away. That's over 11,000 people in my region. Instead, we just saw more of the same. Instead, we saw a government that's continued to side with the top end of town and continued to neglect my community.
This budget is nothing more than an election con job by a government that has just given up governing. They've given up and walked away; it's all just too hard. On the other hand, with Labor, I'm proudly sticking up for our community with a suite of positive policies. They are policies that will look forward, policies that really matter, policies that will go to education and training, health care and the cost of living. They are policies that will reverse the cuts and invest in our nation, policies that will stand up for a fair go for our community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you may have noticed that I have shorter hair than I did last time we were in parliament. This is not from a desire to feel the crisp Canberra weather—although I can assure you that I am feeling it more keenly. While we were away from Canberra, I had my head shaved as part of the World's Greatest Shave. This is the second time I've raised money for the Leukaemia Foundation. The first time was back in 2017. I set out to walk around the electorate, raising money for this charity in the memory of my mentor, Lou Hoad. However, it was given extra significance when one of my staff was diagnosed with an aggressive stage 4 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma a few days into the walk. Brendan has a young family, and the diagnosis was a shock to us all. I'm delighted to say that Brendan has been in full remission for a year now. To celebrate the anniversary of his victorious return to the office, my staff and I shaved off our locks to raise money for the foundation, which provided Brendan and thousands of others with support, care and hope in their darkest hour.
Together, thanks to corporate donations from local companies like Novartis, Bayer and Pfizer, who had a drug listed just last night, and some great support from across the community, we have raised nearly $14,000. This is a fantastic amount of money, and we hope it will go some way to helping the Leukaemia Foundation to continue their good work. (Time expired)
There is a never-ending battle for more mobile phone service in the country. There are many remaining blackspots in Indi, and today I table a component of a petition by the Violet Town community, found compliant by the Petitions Committee. The petition was tabled in the Senate on Tuesday by Senator Jane Hume. It asks the House to facilitate a process ensuring Violet Town and district is provided with a mobile phone service fit for purpose, providing residents with the service that they pay for. I also table a letter undersigned by 121 residents of the Oxley community which requests immediate action to rectify the mobile blackspot that makes communication via mobile phone impossible in their township and surrounding areas.
Colleagues, while I know we're going somewhere with mobile phones—and I noticed in the budget last night there is round 5 and round 6, and four more new mobile phone towers for Indi at Midland Highway in Lima South in Benalla Shire, Berringama and Mt Alfred in Towong Shire, and Smoko and Freeburgh in Alpine Shire—the battle's not over. Wherever you are in rural and regional Australia you should be able to use your mobile phone. The idea of a competitive tendering process is just not working. So I call on the government and the opposition to make the delivery of mobile phone services in regional areas an election issue so that wherever you are you can use your mobile phone.
I've been delighted in recent times to announce a number of significant grants to sporting organisations in my electorate of Menzies. Last Saturday morning I was delighted to attend the Templestowe leisure centre, a major netball arena in my electorate, and meet with members of the Doncaster and District Netball Association to announce the $125,000 pavilion upgrade, funded by the Commonwealth. This will support the netball clubs of Deep Creek, Donvale, East Doncaster, Eltham and Warrandyte, the Panthers Junior Netball Club and St Clement of Rome School, amongst others. I've also been delighted to announce $100,000 for a lighting upgrade for the Schramms Reserve, with Schramms Sports Club being the home of both football and cricket in Doncaster; a further grant of $125,000 for lighting at Rieschiecks Reserve, which is the home of the Doncaster Athletic Club, the Doncaster Little Athletics club and Victorian Masters Athletics Club; a grant of $38,750 for redevelopment planning at Zerbes Reserve, which will benefit the East Doncaster Cricket Club; another $125,000 for lighting at Boronia Reserve, which will benefit the Melbourne Chinese Soccer Association and the Doncaster Cricket Club; and, finally, a grant of $110,000 for a lighting upgrade at Templestowe Reserve, which, of course, is the home of football and cricket in Templestowe. These are all very worthy projects funded by this Commonwealth government.
Unfortunately, the coalition government has shown once again with last night's budget that they have forgotten about Darwin and Palmerston, the capital of the north. We have had, in the Northern Territory, more bad news, with less GST shown in that budget last night. However, it is still unclear when we will get any of the funding that's been promised for Kakadu National Park. The Territory needs investment now, not in five years time.
There's been a long-promised city deal. The current Prime Minister came to Darwin and said $100 million. You know how much they're giving us in the next financial year—$2.3 million. That is not the investment we need in the far north. Local businesses are crying out for investment. This is another missed opportunity for the Northern Territory and it's not helpful. After six long years of cuts and chaos, this was the current Prime Minister's chance to support the services that everyday Territorians rely on. Instead, Mr Morrison has delivered an election con filled with the same Liberal cuts. In this budget he's failed to reverse cuts to schools and hospitals and failed to reverse cuts to TAFE. It's what we in the Territory would call a gammon surplus, underpinned by cuts to the NDIS. It's a disgrace.
Last Sunday, whilst seeking inspiration for my final week in the parliament, I visited the Jewish Holocaust Centre in Melbourne. There an elderly gentleman, short in stature and hard of hearing, offered to show me and others around. His name was Jack Fogel. While showing us around, Jack showed us the number on his arm: 140934, the number that was tattooed on his arm at 15 years of age in Auschwitz as a Jewish prisoner of Nazi Germany. Jack instantly had my attention. Jack was 94 years old. Jack's story was: two years in Auschwitz, surviving two death marches, moving across numerous concentration camps in Germany, being loaded into one of four ships as prisoners, only to have three of those ships shot down and sunk by Allied bombing—and surviving. Jack lost his mum, his dad and all his brothers and sisters in the Second World War. In 1949, speaking no English, Jack came to Australia. He said to me, 'I haven't made a lot of decisions, but the decision to come to Australia was the greatest decision I ever made.'
Jack reminds us that we must never forget what humans can do to each other. Jack volunteers his time, speaks to young Australians and is a voice for remembering the past and also to say that we should not judge others by their race or their religion. Jack, you were born in Poland, but you are a great Australian. Thank you for the two hours of your time. It was a privilege to be beside you.
What a resounding flop this government's budget is. It's a budget for a party who refused to address two of the most critical issues facing our future: climate change and the scourge of insecure work. Its fake surplus is underwritten by robbing our most vulnerable people. Where is the vision? Where are the ideas and plans for the future? Compare that with Labor's last budget of 2013, where we left a great legacy that included the NDIS and Gonski funding for our schools—visionary stuff. All my life I've fought for working people, and let me tell you: this budget does nothing for working people. Tax cuts alone are not a wage rise. One-off payments do not make up for years and years of stagnant wages and rising prices. The government has deliberately kept pay low, cutting penalty rates, capping Public Service wages and encouraging employers in a race to the bottom.
Unlike the other side, who trade in the politics of envy and isolation, Labor wants all Australians to feel secure, to have decent jobs and to feel hopeful about our future. And, speaking of the future, this is a budget from a government that has never tried to deliver real climate action. The Prime Minister has cut his government's main policy to deliver his weak pollution-reduction targets. And what about our most vulnerable? The so-called surplus is underwritten by people with a disability who have not received much-needed services from NDIS. People of my electorate of Cooper want so much more from the government. They want vision for the future and a real plan, and that is what Labor will deliver.
We have had an horrific fire centred around the Bunyip State Park forest. To say that it was not tested that we would lose life in that fire is a lie. It was dangerous. We did lose 29 homes, and those people are being helped as best they can through their state member, Gary Blackwood, and the Victorian state government. There were some minor miracles in that fire. The enormity of this bushfire—usually, when a front comes through, it comes through at 70 kays an hour and it was completely benign; completely benign. If it wasn't for the work of Ivan Smith—and I note the partners of fire people that go out, men and women. I'm sure they fear the worst and hope for the best as their firemen go into the field. But Stephen Keating, Jude Kennedy and John Painter, along with Ivan Smith, used their contingencies, their abilities and their knowledge of former fires to arrange the resources in this campaign against this horrific fire to make a difference and save the property and, probably, the lives of hundreds of people. We were in a very difficult position when these four men were standing in fire zone central and organising how they would confront that fire. The way they did their job should be commended, and I commend them today.
I'd like to congratulate the 2019 Australian Special Olympics team who recently returned home from competing in Abu Dhabi. There were 105 athletes with intellectual disabilities from across Australia who competed in 11 sports and came away with an impressive number of medals. But, more importantly, they came away with incredible memories and a real sense of pride for their sport, their nation and themselves. Amongst the athletes was Rutherford local James Gibbs, who brought home a silver medal in football. Good on you, James! James's family and I and his community are so incredibly proud of him.
All of these athletes deserve so much respect from us. They have represented our nation with pride and dignity. Yet, after last night's budget, it seems this government has thrown the respect for people living with a disability out the window. In the wise words of the member for Jagajaga, every time the Prime Minister boasts about a surplus, just remember that $1.6 billion of that surplus is because people with a disability are being short-changed through a massive underspend on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Don't let that fact escape you, Australia. If this parliament is to reach a surplus at the expense of our most vulnerable—people with a disability, veterans and the unemployed—this is no budget to be proud of. Bring on the election! Shame on this government!
The budget last night showed that the Morrison Liberal-National government has turned around the economic shambles left by Labor and has put us back in the black by focusing on what is important, and it has done that while investing in projects that strengthen our economy and support the industries that keep businesses employing locals. For example, last night's budget included $29.6 million for Shute Harbour Road in the Whitsundays. A critical section of Shute Harbour Road is at Hamilton Plains. This, as locals know only too well, is regularly closed due to flooding. When Hamilton Plains is closed, it stops tourists who are travelling on the Bruce Highway from reaching the Whitsunday coast tourism mecca of Airlie Beach. It stops Whitsunday residents getting to the hospital in times of need. It stops Whitsunday school students getting to school in Proserpine or, worse, from the students' point of view, getting home.
The Queensland Labor government has failed to fix this problem, which is their responsibility; it's a state road. But the federal Liberal-National government understands that fixing this flooding problem not only improves the lives of locals but keeps the tourism industry creating and maintaining local jobs. That's why the government created the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative—to support regional communities and local jobs. Because workers in the Whitsunday region know how important tourism is to their livelihoods, I'm very proud to say the government understands the importance of tourism in the Whitsundays and is strengthening the national economy by backing local industry and jobs.
I'm absolutely outraged to see the Prime Minister and the Treasurer spruik their $1.6 billion underspend at the expense of people with disabilities in the NDIS. This is an absolute disgrace. It is not an achievement. It's $1.6 billion in services that are supposed to support people with disabilities. They're the people who will miss out because this government has botched the NDIS rollout at every single turn. Every single day I'm contacted by constituents who are being let down by this government and the NDIS. There are inexcusable wait times and inadequate care plans and there is a lack of choice, yet those in this government would rather parade around, patting themselves on the back about a $1.6 billion underspend that ought to be directed to the NDIS and those people with disabilities.
I'll just give one example: a young constituent from my electorate, Edward, who was offered a care plan totalling approximately $33,000. This care plan was made completely administratively, without so much as a meeting with Edward or his family. How can you possibly be aware of the intricate needs of people you have never met? Edward's family undertook their own research and came back with a figure of $86,000—a shortfall of around $50,000 for this 12-month period. It is an utter disgrace, and I have written to the minister requesting an urgent review of Edward's case. It is a disgrace— (Time expired)
I rise today to talk about and recognise the tireless work dedicated volunteers provide in my electorate of Dunkley. Volunteers play a critical role in helping to shape Australia and build stronger and more resilient communities. Whether it is helping those with special needs, assisting our most disadvantaged or contributing to local land and wildfire projects, their generosity is felt through all parts of our society.
The Australian government is providing up to $20 million through the 2018 Volunteer Grants Program to support and encourage volunteers in our local communities. I'm pleased to announce that 31 well-deserving organisations in Dunkley have been successful under this program. Some of these include Mornington Railway, based in Mount Eliza; Mums Supporting Families in Need; Dress for Success Mornington Peninsula; Orwil Street Community House; Belvedere Community Centre; Rotary Club of Frankston; Life-Gate Inc.; Miscarriage Information and Support Service; That's The Thing About Fishing; and AWARE Wildlife Rescue, to name but a few. These are some of the organisations we can support more and more by managing a strong economy and delivering a surplus. Recently I had the privilege of visiting AWARE in Langwarrin and talking to president Gillian Donath about the fantastic work they do, providing a free service to rescue and rehabilitate sick and injured wildlife. These are the organisations we need to support. I congratulate all organisations in Dunkley— (Time expired)
If the 2014 budget didn't prove it, this budget proves that this is the most unfair government in Australia's history. Just think about it for a second. Workers on $40,000 are left behind, but if you earn $200,000 a year, you get a $11,640 tax cut per year. Just think about that. Politicians in this chamber will get an $11,000 tax cut, but the parliamentary cleaners will get $11 per week. That's a disgrace, and it's out of step with the Australian population. The typical Australian earns $45,000 a year, not $200,000 a year. This is an unfair budget that gives tax cuts to the top end of town.
What makes it worse is that there's a $1.6 billion cut to the NDIS hidden in this budget that delivers a surplus. Talk to my constituents who see their plans cut from the NDIS. They're waiting longer for services and they're getting less assistance from the NDIA. We have over 128,000 older Australians waiting for home care packages. We've still got $14 billion of cuts to schools, $3 billion of cuts to TAFE and apprenticeships, and cuts to Centrelink staff. The most important project in my region, the Glendale Transport Interchange, is still neglected after six years. We have got wages growth down, GDP growth down and consumption growth down. The Australian people will judge this government very harshly in a month's time, and deservedly so.
The dairy industry in northern Victoria was one of the most productive in Australia, and it is now on its knees. On a daily basis I have been contacted by dairy farmers who cannot afford to buy feed for their cows nor the water to produce the feed for their cows. Families have invested tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars in the genetics of their herds over decades and have lifted milk production to world standards. Now these farmers are shutting down their herds and sending these amazing genetic pools off to the abattoirs. We have an absurd situation where the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder now holds more water in storage than the entire GMID uses for productive agriculture in the course of a year.
Over the last two years, Minister Littleproud has worked incredibly hard with the states to restore confidence and security around the 450 up, and he has included the shadow minister, Mr Burke, in all of these negotiations. But two weeks ago, the shadow minister, the member for Watson, from his little office in Punchbowl, made an announcement that the Labor policy is changing and they are going to remove the cap on buy-backs. Last Friday, when he was in the safety of South Australia, he made another policy that is going to revoke the socioeconomic test against taking more water out of agriculture. The dairy farmers in the Goulburn Valley don't think it can get much worse. However, what Labor are preparing to do is going to completely decimate what's left of the dairy industry. The member for Watson is the architect of the whole industry.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I inform the House of the death on 31 March 2019 of William Peter Coleman AO, a member of this House for the division of Wentworth from 1981 until 1987. As a mark of respect to the memory of Peter Coleman, I invite all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the House.
Before we proceed to questions without notice today, I'd like to inform the House that we have joining us on the floor this afternoon His Excellency Mr Arthur B Culvahouse Jr, the ambassador of the United States of America, and Her Excellency Mrs Vicki Treadell, high commissioner of the United Kingdom. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to both of you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it a moral failure to build an election surplus of starving the National Disability Insurance Scheme of money, leaving Australians with a disability without the services they need?
I thank the member for her question. Our government is 100 per cent committed to every single cent that the NDIS requires—every single cent. It's 100 per cent fully funded under this government. What the member has put forward is a blatant and ugly untruth, and she should withdraw it. I'd asked the minister for social services to address the untruth that she has spoken in this place.
The shadow minister has asked about funding for the NDIS. Let me tell you how much funding we are providing for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Last year it was $13.3 billion. This year, in 2019-20, it will be $17.9 billion. That's a $4.5 billion increase in funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The following year, it'll be $22.2 billion. The following year, it'll be $23.6 billion. This is funding at a record level for disability.
And I'd make one other very important point: there is one side of this House that can be relied upon when it makes a commitment to be able to deliver it and to be able to fund it. There's one side of this House that knows, if you make a commitment to the Australian people, you need to have the financial wherewithal to deliver it. Sadly, under the previous government, we saw PBS referrals, PBS decisions, being held up for fiscal reasons. An absolute disgrace! You will not see that under this government, because there is one other very important number in the budget that the Treasurer brought down last night, and that is a $7.1 billion surplus.
Why is that surplus so important? It is because the Australian can be confident that we are managing the budget, that we have a strong budget, and that we can pay for the commitments that we have made—and, indeed, you can see the evidence of that in the way, for example, that there is an upward variation across four years for public hospitals of $1.9 billion. We can do that because the budget is under control. The budget will be in surplus. Our commitments on the National Disability Insurance Scheme are fully funded. Australians with disability can rely upon us to meet the commitments that we have made.
My question is the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government's plan for a stronger economy will secure a better future for all Australians, delivering more jobs, lower taxes and guaranteeing essential services?
I thank the member of Boothby for her question, and I thank all the members of the Liberal and National parties for the great job that they have done over the last six years in this very important task of cleaning up the fiscal mess left behind by the Labor Party when we came to office in 2013. The budget surplus handed down by the Treasurer, the first budget surplus handed down in 12 years—
Ms Kearney interjecting—
The member for Batman is warned!
That deals with step one: getting the budget back into balance by getting expenditure under control, keeping taxes under control and ensuring we are growing the economy to bring the budget back to surplus. But now the job begins of paying off Labor's debt. That job was done by the Howard and Costello government and it will be done by my government, in the same way it was done by the Howard and Costello government, by maintaining a strong economy, keeping spending under control, keeping taxes under control and ensuring that we continue to give the incentive to Australians to go out there and work hard, start businesses and make investments.
The second plank of what the Treasurer announced last night was to continue to build a strong economy. You don't do that with higher taxes and you do not do that with reckless carbon emissions targets. What you do is you lower taxes for Australians, and you do it for all Australians. Under our government, there is a point in working hard in this country and there is a point in having a great business and working hard in that business and investing in your future. Under a Labor government, there would be no point in working hard, because, the harder you work, the more they punish you. What you see in Labor's tax plan is that they have to punish some to pretend they want to help others. All they will do is put a dampener on the Australian economy and hold the economy back.
We are investing $100 million in the infrastructure the Australian economy needs and Australians living all around the country need to get about safer—to get home sooner and safer; to get on site and get out of the traffic. That is what our plan on infrastructure is doing. We are investing more than half a billion in the skills of all Australians—from those coming out of school to those changing jobs in their late fifties or even their sixties. That is the skills plan we are investing in, with 80,000 additional apprentices funded by this government.
All of this guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on, with increases of over 60 per cent already under this government since we were elected for public schools and hospitals, and a 27 per cent increase in funding for Medicare, with the highest Medicare bulkbilling on record delivered by the strong economy and the strong budget management of a great Liberal-National government.
Before I called the Leader of the Opposition, those regular interjectors, the member for Bass, the member for Griffith, the member for Brand and the member for Herbert are warned. I may as well be reading old Hansard here, but I will just say it all again: if they interject again, they will be out.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning, less than 24 hours after delivering the budget, the government caved in to Labor pressure and backflipped on energy payments for thousands of vulnerable Australians, blowing an $80 million black hole in the budget. Prime Minister, doesn't this just confirm, after six years of cuts and chaos, that this budget is nothing but a con that has already fallen apart?
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
The Minister for Agriculture will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
I have a couple of corrections for the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, the payments that are being made in the bill that went through in this House are not in the 2019-20 year. That's the budget year. What we're talking about is the 2018-19 year. I know these are things that are a bit of a mystery to the Leader of the Opposition, but I can tell you why we're in a position to provide that one-off payment to Australians this year that was in the government's bill introduced to the House this morning. That is that, since the last budget was handed down—and I did that as Treasurer—the performance of the budget over the last 12 months has meant that we are $10 billion better off this time this year than we were at the time when we handed down the last budget. We believe that when we're in that position where we have outperformed on our budget and where we've been able to deliver a better financial outcome we should take the opportunity to ensure that those who need it most are given the opportunity to ease their cost-of-living pressures. That was the initiative that this government brought in. That was the initiative we acted on. I'm very pleased that it was able to pass through the House of Representatives today, and I trust it will also pass through the Senate later today to ensure that they get that relief.
But I can tell you that, if the Labor Party ever get to occupy the Treasury benches, there won't be the opportunity to share the best performance of a budget, because what we know from when Labor were in government is that budget after budget they would promise and fail to deliver. The member for Lilley will soon be leaving this chamber, but right now we can certainly say that we are in his debt. We are absolutely in the member for Lilley's debt. Over the next 10 years, we will eliminate the Labor debt that was left to this government, because we have put the budget back into surplus. Over the next decade, we will wipe out the debt that was created by the financial recklessness of the Labor Party. They cannot manage money. They cannot be trusted to manage money. What we know, because they can't manage money, is that, when they can't find it in their own budget, they come after the budgets of retirees, families and small-business people. That's what they come after—the budgets of farmers, pastoralists and graziers. They couldn't even bring themselves to vote for a drought fund.
Ms Kearney interjecting—
The member for Batman will leave under 94(a) for an hour. The member for Paterson is warned.
The member for Batman then left the chamber.
I note that the member for Batman is leaving the chamber. Remember that the member for Batman is the one who said paying tax is a privilege. That's what the member for Batman says. I think Australians should be able to keep more of what they earn. I think they've had enough of the privilege of taxes—
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned!
and certainly the privileges that the Labor Party want to put on them with the $200 billion worth of more tax privileges that they'd like to put on hardworking Australians. We'll keep taxes low.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen has been warned! I accept he probably didn't hear that because he was constantly interjecting.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government's strong economic plan has repaired the budget and allowed us to pay down Labor's debt. Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Last night I announced to the House that Australia is back on track and Australia is back in the black. That is the result of hard but necessary decisions that this side of the House have made over the last six years. This is good news for the people of Goldstein because, as a result of the measures announced last night, more than 24,000 small businesses in the member for Goldstein's electorate will be able to access an increase in the instant access write-off, which is now at $30,000 and now applying to companies with a turnover of up to $50 million. And more than 73,000 people in the electorate of Goldstein will now get tax relief as a result of the measures we announced.
I remind the House that when we came to government, unemployment was higher and growth was lower than they are today. But, as a result of the decisions we have taken, Australia's budgetary position is stronger. We were able to announce last night a surplus of $7.1 billion for 2019-20, a surplus in the next year of $11 billion, a surplus in the next year after that of $17.8 billion and in the year after that a surplus of $9.2 billion—$45 billion of surpluses over the next four years! A $55 billion turnaround from the budget mess left by the member for Lilley. That is the result of good economic management.
Ms Swanson interjecting—
The Treasurer will pause for a second. The member for Paterson will leave under standing order 94(a). All interjections are unparliamentary—probably a bad idea to look at me while you do it.
The member for Paterson then left the chamber.
We brought spending growth down to less than half of what we inherited—under two per cent. Tax to GDP has stayed at 23.3 per cent, below our cap of 23.9. But we have a cap and those opposite don't, because they don't believe there should be any limits to taxes, because they have $200 billion of taxes.
The reality is our strong budgetary position has allowed us to invest in the things that matter to the Australian people: $100 billion of infrastructure, which will get them to work earlier and get them home to the dinner table sooner; a skills package of more than half a billion dollars to create 80,000 new apprentices; and tax cuts for more than 13 million Australians, because we believe Australians should earn more and Australians should keep more of what they earn. That is the contrast at the next election. We on this side of the House are for lower taxes. Those on that side of the House are for higher taxes. This budget presents a clear choice to the people of Australia.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that last night, just hours after the budget was delivered, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and the Public Service had crisis talks about changing the budget? Doesn't this just confirm that after six years of cuts and chaos, the budget is a con job which is falling apart before our eyes?
Mr Speaker, what I can confirm to the House is last night we announced a budget surplus. That's right! A surplus that the Labor Party never dreamed of. As I was locked away yesterday, I understand the Prime Minister told the House that the last time the Labor Party delivered a surplus he had curly hair!
Curly, long hair!
Curly, long hair. I can confirm to the House the last time the Labor Party delivered a surplus, I had a mullet! I had a mullet! It's long gone now. It's long gone, because God only created a few perfect heads and the rest he put hair on!
The reality is we have produced a budget surplus and we have provided assistance to those low-income earners, to those people on a disability support pension, to those people on an age pension, to those people on a carer payment, to those veterans, to ease their cost of living pressures and to help then meet the next energy bill. You can only do that with a strong economy—a strong economy that's growing from year to year, a strong economy that is stronger today than what we inherited. We have a strong economy that has created more than one million new jobs ahead of schedule, a strong economy that has seen the number of people of working age on welfare the lowest in 30 years, and a strong economy that sees a government with its spending growth the lowest of any government in 50 years. We have a strong economy that means last night we could announce a massive mental health package to treat youth suicide and the most vulnerable people in our society, to help with early psychosis treatment, to help with 30 new headspace centres, to break those waiting lists, to get support to Indigenous communities, with peer support that they need most. This will make a difference to people's lives. This will save lives. Putting more drugs on the PBS, putting more money into aged care, extending the Medicare Benefits Schedule so that people with breast cancer can get their diagnostic imaging through the Medicare Benefits Schedule—these are the measures that are the social dividend from a strong economy. We make no apologies for the fact that we have made the necessary decisions. We make no apologies for the fact that we have made the difficult decisions. We no make no apologies for the fact that we are creating a budget that is in surplus, the first surplus in more than a decade—something that the Labor Party could only dream of.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Wentworth by-election sent a clear message that people in my electorate want urgent action on climate change and the environment. We have just experienced a summer of extreme weather events—there are one million dead fish in the Darling River—and credible experts say that, on our current trajectory, Australia has no chance of reaching its Paris commitments. Last night's federal budget failed to take the opportunity to promote the role of renewable energy and show national leadership on the environment. Prime Minister, will you commit to strengthen our environment laws and put in place a well-resourced, independent national environment protection agency that would have equivalent powers to the national corporate regulator and the ability to impose a similar range of penalties?
I thank the member for her question. The government agrees that action needs to be taken to address climate change, and that's why there was a $3.5 billion climate solutions plan included in last night's budget. And several weeks ago I outlined, in some precise detail, exactly how we were going to meet our 26 per cent emissions reduction target through the various measures that we've outlined, and that includes the Emissions Reduction Fund, which provides the reverse auction, which are purchases, and the abatement that is achieved within industry, business and others. That program has been extremely effective over the last five years. It's one of the reasons why, when we came to government, we turned around a more than 700 million tonne deficit in reaching our 2020 targets in Kyoto, and we will now beat our Kyoto targets by 369 million tonnes—a 1.1 billion tonne turnaround through the success of our emissions reduction policies.
In addition to that, there's the Snowy 2.0 scheme; the Energy Efficient Communities Program; the connection of the Marinus Link to Tasmania—
I rise on a point of order. The question was: will the government commit to—
The member for Wentworth needs to state the point of order.
It is on relevance.
The member for Wentworth may proceed.
My question was around whether the government would strengthen our environment laws and put in place a well-resourced, independent national environment protection agency with appropriate powers.
The member for Wentworth will resume her seat. I make the point to the member for Wentworth, as I've made on many occasions, that, whilst that was certainly asked, there was a lot of other material in the question as well. The Prime Minister—indeed, a minister answering the question—is entitled to refer to that. That is one of the perils of a 45-second question, I have to say. The Prime Minister has the call.
These are the mechanisms which will ensure that we do meet our 2030 emissions reduction target, which we have set at 26 per cent. But I'll tell you what we won't do: what we won't do is force businesses to spend $36 billion purchasing foreign carbon credits as a way of reducing emissions. That is the policy that the Labor Party announced on Monday of this week. They want carbon credits from Kazakhstan. That is the policy of forcing businesses to shell out $36 billion that they could spend on increasing wages, on creating jobs and on investing in their businesses and in dividend distributions to their shareholders. But, no, the Labor Party wants $36 billion to go to foreign carbon traders.
Over in Kazakhstan, I'm sure they're pretty pleased about this. I'm sure they're absolutely thrilled about this. Some may call this a carbon tax. I will call it 'the Borat tax'. The Borat tax, which will be put on by the Labor Party, will have carbon credits from Kazakhstan. I know what Borat would think of the Labor Party's policies on emissions reduction; he would say, 'Very nice; very nice!' That's what he'd be thinking about the carbon trading policies of the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to force companies to send $36 billion offshore—sucking jobs offshore, sucking profits offshore and sucking wage increases offshore. The only bonus anyone is going to get from the Leader of the Opposition is the bonus that will be provided to foreign carbon traders, who are just simply saying to the Leader of the Opposition, 'Make my bonus.' (Time expired)
My question is for the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's strong economic management is lowering taxes and allowing hardworking Australians to keep more of their own money? Is the Treasurer aware of any threats to this approach?
I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I know that he is working hard for the people of his electorate, and they are direct beneficiaries of the measures that we announced in last night's budget. For the people of Bonner, there are more than 17,000 small businesses that now will be able to access the $30,000 tax offset for small and medium sized businesses. There are, in the electorate of Bonner, more than 70,000 taxpayers who will now be able to get a tax cut as a result of the measures we have taken in this budget.
The people of Bonner, like the people of Queensland, have benefited from the increased investment in schools and hospital funding that we have put in place since coming to government. Last night's budget was the next stage of our economic plan. It set out how we can continue to see strong economic growth and low unemployment and continue to skill up our people for the jobs of today and for tomorrow. One hundred billion dollars of infrastructure is a major contribution to building the productive capacity of our economy so that people can get to work sooner and get home sooner as well, to be at the kitchen table.
We are doing all of this—investing in infrastructure, investing in skills, providing $158 billion of tax cuts—without increasing taxes. That is the difference between us and the Labor Party. The member for McMahon has the gall to tell the retirees of Australia that, if they don't like the Labor Party's policy, then they can vote against the Labor Party. We also saw last night, in the budget papers, that dwelling investment is expected to fall in 2019-20 by seven per cent. This is the worst possible time for Labor's housing taxes, because the Labor Party's housing taxes are designed to drive prices down and rents up. Independent economic modelling has showed that prices could fall by as much as 16 per cent and rents could go up by as much as 22 per cent as a result of Labor's policy.
So the contrast at the next election is very clear. We have a coalition that is delivering budget surpluses next year and into the forwards, as well as infrastructure, skills and lower taxes, and a Labor Party that is committed to higher taxes on retirees, on home owners, on small-business people, on people who go to work. There's only one choice at the next election. Vote for the coalition, because we are for lower taxes.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that page 159 of Budget Paper No. 2 shows that energy payments will cost $284 million? Can the Treasurer also confirm that, this morning, the government introduced a bill which states that it will cost $365 million, an $81 million blowout in 24 hours? Doesn't this prove that, after six years of cuts and chaos under this Liberal government, the Treasurer's con job has fallen apart before the ink was even dry on the budget papers?
It's like being hit with a wet lettuce, Mr Speaker! At the end of the day, what we have done is provide energy assistance payments to people who need them most. We have done that from a strong budget position. We acknowledge the cost-of-living pressures that people are under. But I can also tell the House that we have announced a budget surplus, and that when it comes to our previous forecasts, we have outperformed them. When it came to the 2016-17 year we outperformed the forecasts in the final budget outcome by $4 billion. When it came to the 2017-18 final budget outcome we outperformed by $19.3 billion.
But when the member for Lilley was running around doing budgets, he actually underperformed his own forecasts. Do you know by how much, Mr Speaker? It was by $80 billion!
Missed it by that much!
Missed it by that much! The member for McMahon likes to forget recent history, but let me remind him that after we got elected he went to the Press Club and he set some tests for the new coalition government. One of those tests was that we kept unemployment below 6¼ per cent. I can inform the member for McMahon that unemployment is 4.9 per cent!
There was another test that the member for McMahon set—that we have a AAA credit rating. I can inform the member for McMahon that we have a AAA credit rating! And another test that he set was that we would be in the top 10 countries of the world for economic performance. I can tell the member for McMahon that we're in the top 10 countries of the world for economic performance!
But he also set another test, and that other test was that we set a tax-to-GDP ratio of 23.7 per cent. We are, according to the budget papers, at 23.3 per cent! But do you know what, Mr Speaker? This is the hypocrisy of the Labor Party, because when they were puffing their chests with their union mates at the national conference last year they said that there is no need anymore for a tax-to-GDP ratio, 'Forget a speed limit on taxes; we will increase taxes and that won't have any impact on the economy.' So the member for McMahon has no credibility. He went to the Press Club, he set tests for us and we have met those tests. These are tests that he won't even hold himself to account on.
My question is to the Treasurer also. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is guaranteeing the essential services that Australian families rely upon, including in my electorate of Robertson? And how might a different approach to managing our economy undermine this approach?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I can inform the House that, as a result of the measures announced last night, there are more than 16,000 small businesses in the member for Robertson's electorate, and medium-sized businesses, that will benefit from the extension to the instant asset write-off to $30,000—and also to companies with a turnover of up to $50 million.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
We've already seen more than 350,000 small businesses—
Opposition members interjecting—
The Labor Party is not interested in small business. They actually want to increase the taxes on small business. They're not interested in small business; they're not interested in the engine room of the economy—3.3 million people. In every corner of the local community there is a small business, from the drycleaner, to the cafe, to the person who runs the local shop. They're the small businesses that we, as Liberals and Nationals, spoke to last night. And they are the small businesses that the Labor Party ignores.
In the member for Robertson's electorate there are 16,000 of them that will benefit directly as a result of the measures. There are nearly 60,000 taxpayers in the member for Robertson's electorate who will benefit directly from the tax cuts that we announced last night. There are two instalments to those tax cuts. There is the extension of the instant low-and middle-income tax offset, which will see somebody on $60,000 a year get $1,080 in their pocket in just 13 weeks time when they put in their next tax return. If you're a teacher or a tradie and you're a couple in a family, if you're earning $60,000 each then that's $2,160 in your pocket in 13 weeks time due to the announcements of the Morrison government. That's money that goes to your quarterly energy bill. That's money that goes to your monthly mortgage payment. That's money that goes to your yearly car insurance. These are decisions taken by our government that will ease the cost of living for all Australians. And because we have a strong budget position we are able to spend more—record amounts on hospitals and schools, like building a children's cancer centre for the first time in Sydney, like a brain and spinal ward in South Australia, like extending the PBS to six new drugs, like one for acute leukaemia that would otherwise cost $130,000 for a course, but now will cost $6.50 for a concession card holder and $40 for someone who is a general patient. Last night's budget was for the people of Australia. Last night's budget creates a stronger economy. Last night's budget guarantees essential services.
My question is to the Treasurer: When did the Treasurer first decide that the energy payment numbers and decisions in the budget were wrong?
As has been said many times, it is this government that has provided an energy supplement to the people to ease their cost of living pressures, and we have done that with a strong budgetary position. It wasn't something that the Leader of the Opposition had ever thought of. The out of touch Leader of the Opposition—someone who's not interested in the cost of living pressures with his new electricity tax, someone who's not interested in cost of living pressures by raiding the hard earned savings of retirees, someone who's not interested in cost of living pressures with his push for increased rents for millions of Australians—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
I refer to your earlier ruling today with respect to preambles broadening the relevance rule. This question contains absolutely no preamble and deals specifically with asking the Treasurer when it was that he first decided that the energy payment numbers and decisions in the budget were wrong.
I will rule on that point of order first, if the Treasurer would resume his seat for a second. The Manager of Opposition Business is correct that this is a very short question. It is in fact one question without a preamble—highly unusual, if I can make that observation! But as I've said on many occasions the Treasurer is entitled to have the opportunity in his introductory remarks to give some context. He's been going for about 35 or 40 seconds—there's 2:19 left on the clock and it is three minutes. So, I would be expecting him to come to the specifics of the question or wind up his answer quickly. The Treasurer has the call.
We have extended the energy supplement to include this new cohort of recipients, to ensure that this piece of legislation passes the House. It is interesting to see the Leader of the Opposition, who never came up with this idea of supporting the low- and middle-income earners—the people on disability support pension and the age pension. We made this decision because we wanted this legislation to pass the House.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Would the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government's record infrastructure investment is benefitting Australian communities, including those in my electorate of Murray? And how would another approach affect jobs and opportunities in the regions?
I thank the member for Murray, who, like me and everybody else, lives today in the age of infrastructure. The age of infrastructure is upon us! No matter where you live, no matter where you work, we're investing to get you home sooner and safer. It is part of our $100 billion investment in infrastructure over the next 10 years. How fantastic is that? The Liberals and Nationals have committed $208 million to deliver stage 1 of the Goulburn Valley Highway bypass at Shepparton. I know how much that means not only to the member for Murray but certainly to the people he represents in the great Goulburn Valley. It's a vital boost to road safety in that region. The bypass will mean that transport companies, of which there are many, can get product to market sooner, improving the competitiveness of local businesses—particularly those small businesses paying less tax with the instant asset write-off, thanks to the budget—and helping them create even more jobs for locals. Stage 1 of the bypass involves a 10-kilometre road starting at the Midland Highway in Mooroopna, and this is something that the member for Murray has fought for, campaigned for and advocated for—and he has delivered, as part of a Liberal-Nationals government. The chair of the Goulburn Valley Highway Shepparton Bypass Action Group, Peter Johnson, welcomed the investment, and he told the member for Murray: 'To have a financial commitment of this magnitude to the project is magnificent and the best news we could've hoped for.' The mayor of Shepparton, Kim O'Keeffe, said, 'The bypass will improve local business by helping our transport companies to move product as quickly as possible,' and of course she's correct, too.
We've already invested in the Echuca-Moama Bridge. It's currently under construction.
Last month we announced a $15 million investment in the FRUITCo project in Shepparton to lower production costs, to help reduce waste and to get a better return at the farm gate. I know how important that is for our farmers.
It's jobs; it's opportunities; it's safer roads: last night's was a budget for the bush, a budget for infrastructure, a surplus budget. Hallelujah! A surplus budget! This is what the Nationals and the Liberals are doing. This is what we're delivering. We're investing in infrastructure. We're investing in country, coastal, remote and regional communities—and metropolitan, too.
And of course, if you look at Victoria, 79 more councils will receive money under R2R, Roads to Recovery. That's significant. That's a significant investment in those local councils, so they can make decisions about which streets and which roads can have better bitumen and more bitumen. In some cases, they haven't had asphalt. They're going to get it, thanks to the Liberals and the Nationals.
Faster rail to Geelong—I know how important that is for the member for Corangamite. Delivering the regional rail revival; $60 million to replace the Swan Hill Bridge—it just goes on and on.
The age of infrastructure has dawned! It's upon us! Well done, Liberals! Well done, Nationals! Well done, Treasurer!
My—
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! Members on my right!
It's coming!
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Member for Grayndler—I'm just trying to contain myself at the irony of the Leader of the House complaining about the use of props. But I will enforce the rules. At this stage, I think I'm just going to give the member for Grayndler the benefit of the doubt, that he needs a large photocopier! But we'll see how he goes.
Thanks, Mr Speaker. My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and arises out of the answer just given. Can the Prime Minister confirm that in the last few weeks his government did promise faster rail for Geelong, but last night's budget failed to provide a single cent over the next four years to deliver the project, and that his $200 million promise for Kakadu became Kakadon't, with not a single new cent in the budget? Doesn't this just confirm that his government's budget con job has already fallen apart? (Time expired)
Well, I thought the member for Grayndler had been around this place for a long time, and I thought he actually understood how budgets were put together. He's asked me about the funding for Kakadu. What he obviously has failed to see is that, in the MYEFO, provision was taken in the decisions taken but not yet announced, and the funding was provided in that fund, and, when the money is put in that bucket of money, when it is put in as a measure in the budget, then the line item funding is entered as dashes. That means the funding is in the budget—all of the funding is in the budget. And all the member for Grayndler has shown is that, despite being here forever, he, like everyone on that side of the House, has no idea how a budget is put together. No wonder they haven't been able to find a surplus—they can't even find their way around the budget papers!
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how a stronger economy enables the government to invest in new life-saving treatments for patients living with cancer?
I thank the member for Leichhardt, in particular for his advocacy for women to have access to new MRIs and PET scans for breast cancer and also for his advocacy for a new MRI machine for Cairns. Like everyone in this House, he comes both as a member of parliament and as somebody whose world has been rocked by the impact of cancer. I know that there are good people in every seat in this chamber to whom this is immensely important. At the moment, one of his closest friends, Trish Butler, is in the Cairns hospital battling multiple myeloma. Cancer touches all of us, and in this budget we've been fortunate to make some deep, profound and long-lasting investments that will help change the outcomes for patients.
Only last week, with the Prime Minister, I had the privilege of visiting the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne. We were able to invest $80 million in the creation of a national centre for cellular immunotherapy. This is one of the breakthrough treatments within cellular immunotherapy. CAR T is at this point in time the most promising. There are Australians overseas—including Gina, whose husband I had a text from yesterday—who are currently receiving treatment. Right now, though, what we are doing through this investment is allowing Australians to have access to something which, for blood cancer such as leukaemia and lymphoma, can be a breakthrough treatment, potentially a cure, here in Australia. We will help lead the world with this investment.
It is the same in Sydney, where we are establishing, with a $100 million investment in this budget, in conjunction with the New South Wales government, Australia's first comprehensive cancer centre for children at the Sydney Children's Hospital. I was there only last Friday. I met a beautiful little girl, Olivia, who is three years old. She is battling a very serious form of brain cancer. That hospital is already providing extraordinary care and treatment to her and to her parents. Our hope is that she will win that battle. This new comprehensive cancer centre will make it more likely that children such as Olivia will win the battle and that their parents will have real hope.
That is what the new medicines that have been announced in this budget will do—medicines such as Ibrance, for 3,000 women with metastatic or advanced breast cancer, which would otherwise cost $55,000; medicines such Bavencio, for the treatment of Merkel cell carcinoma, a rare form of skin cancer, which would have cost over $150,000 will now be available for $6.50 or $40.34 for nonconcessional patients; and medicines such as Besponza, which the Treasurer announced last night, for advanced lymphoblastic leukaemia. These are things you can only ever do when you have a strong economy. These are the very reasons that we do the things we do. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has already performed one humiliating budget backflip on the energy payment, but his budget still gives more than two million workers a tax cut of less than $5 a week, while bankers and CEOs get $11,000 a year. So why won't he do another backflip today and give retail assistants, cleaners and manufacturing workers a tax cut that they deserve?
We on this side of the House are proud of the fact that, because of last night's budget, 13.3 million taxpayers will be better off. We on this side of the House believe in lower taxes. We on this side of the House believe that people should earn more and keep more of what they earn. We believe that we need a flatter, simpler tax system that remains progressive. Under the reforms that we announced last night, the top five per cent of taxpayers will continue to pay about a third of the overall tax burden. The top one per cent of taxpayers will actually increase their proportion of the overall tax burden under the reforms we have put in place. Somebody earning $200,000 will be paying 10 times the amount of tax paid by someone who is earning $45,000.
Here in Australia, the top marginal rate of tax cuts in at about 2.2 times average full-time earnings. In the United Kingdom, it cuts in at four times. In the United States, it cuts in at eight times. We have a progressive system in this place and in this country, and we're proud of it. But what we're also proud of is the fact that we return the people's money, because it's not our money; it's their money.
The Labor Party believes that you need to always chase higher spending with higher taxes. That doesn't end well. When the budget papers show that dwelling investment will fall by seven per cent in 2019-20 you know it's the worst possible time for Labor's new housing tax. You know that Labor's policy to drive rents up by 22 per cent and drive house prices down by 16 per cent comes at exactly the worst time. And the member for McMahon knows why. If you send dwelling investment down, if you send housing prices down, it will impact on household consumption, and household consumption is 60 per cent of GDP. We need household consumption to be strong. So the Labor Party, by sending people's house prices down and their rents up, will be hurting household consumption—not to mention the retirees.
Over a million retirees in Australia have saved diligently and done nothing wrong except do exactly that: take responsibility for their own savings and their own future. But the Labor Party's coming after their savings. And I say to the member for McMahon: why is it okay for somebody who has their money in an industry super fund to still continue to get their franking credits, but someone who's a self-funded retiree is having them ripped away from them by the Labor Party? The hypocrisy in your policy! Only the coalition will lower people's taxes. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Health, in relation to mental health. Will the minister please outline to the House how a stronger economy enables the government to invest in the single largest package ever to support the mental health of young Australians?
I want to thank the member for Petrie for his question and his advocacy for strong action on mental health and, in particular, youth suicide prevention. As every MP in this place knows, each of us has experienced mental health issues and the challenges surrounding that in our own lives and in our roles as MPs.
One of the first things that I did—and it was a very heavy weight—on coming into this role was to go with the great Professor Patrick McGorry to Grafton, in the seat of Page, where there had been a tragic, agonising, youth suicide cluster and to meet with parents who had been affected by this most catastrophic of circumstances. We committed a headspace to Grafton, and the information that we have is that since that time there's been a dramatic turnaround in health outcomes. There have been, to the best of my knowledge, no reported youth suicides in that town since. What that says to us is that real action on the ground can make a difference. It's a universal truth that's respected across all sides of this House.
In this budget, we have committed $736 million to mental health and, in particular, $461 million to mental health and youth suicide prevention. At the heart of it is $375 million for expanding the role, the space and the number of facilities that are associated and delivered through headspace across Australia—an extra 30 new headspace facilities. These will be critical in helping to save lives and protect lives and to give young people hope. There is expanded funding to ensure reduced waiting times in headspaces; $110 million to ensure that there is funding and support for youth psychoses, action for those who are suffering from critical situations; $15 million for a national suicide prevention database to look for trends such as were occurring in Grafton and to take early and immediate action; and then, of course, $15 million for direct intervention in Indigenous communities, which have been going through a particular agony, over and above everybody else, in recent times.
All of this is twinned with what we're doing in the broader community with mental health: a $275 million package on top of what we're doing with youth. For the first time, there will be a network of adult mental health centres dedicated to the needs of adults, not just youth. And for the first time there will be a network of eating disorder clinics for allowing residential treatment. Many people have fought for these things. It could never have been possible without a strong economy—without the ability to deliver these services. As I said before, we do this because we have a strong economy, but it is why we need a strong economy. This is why we do what we do.
Before I ask my question, I'd like to associate the opposition with the remarks about the importance of mental health. There's plenty we disagree on but not the importance of tackling mental health. My question is to the Prime Minister. With an election due any day, a national unity on the rejection of racist hate speech never being more important than it is now, will the Prime Minister now direct every member of this government to put One Nation last?
I'm going to need to rule that question out of order because the Practice makes it very clear that the Prime Minister can only be asked questions on matters for which he's responsible, and that is not a responsibility of the Prime Minister. I'm prepared to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on the subject.
There are two quick points that I'd submit on that. The first is, as I've put previously, during the Howard government years, the question was frequently asked, and, secondly—
I don't agree with all precedencies.
I respect that. Secondly, it has been the case where questions that were otherwise viewed by the Speaker as not being within standing orders, when the Prime Minister has wanted to answer them, have been allowed to proceed.
The subject matter of the question is not a responsibility of the Prime Minister. I'm afraid it's black and white. There are other occasions where prime ministers—
Mr Wood interjecting—
Member for La Trobe, it's okay; we'll get to you. Indeed, there may be occasions where the Prime Minister or ministers have wanted to answer questions that are out of order, but I could give you many examples where, even though that was the case, I didn't allow it because we have the standing orders and we have the rules. So I'm going to stick with my ruling.
My question is to the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population. Will the minister update the House on how the government's investment in fast rail will bust congestion and support population growth? How might a different approach derail important infrastructure projects?
I thank the member for La Trobe for his question on the budget. Labor has stopped asking questions on the budget, we point out. After seven questions, they've stopped asking. No more questions on the budget! On the budget, I can report that last night we put $4 billion into the Urban Congestion Fund and, over the last month alone, we've been busting congestion right across the great cities of our nation, including in the member for La Trobe's electorate—on Racecourse Road, on McGregor Road, on the key intersections along the Princes Highway and, last night, duplicating Wellington Road in his electorate. It's such a congested piece of road. That will be fixed, as well as other areas.
This Urban Congestion Fund is just one element of our population plan, which is aimed at easing the congestion in our big cities and supporting the growth of some of the regional areas. Another part of that plan is our 20-year fast rail plan. In that plan, our aim is to connect our big capital cities to the satellite regional centres. Over the next 20 years, we hope that many like that will be done because it will enable people to reside in those regional centres and very easily commute into the big capital cities on a regular basis. We are starting with the first one, and we have got $2 billion on the table to get the—
I'm worried about this one—does the member for Grayndler have a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. It's on relevance. It goes to when this very slow fast rail will actually commence? When does it start?
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. There's no point of order.
We have $2 billion to get the Geelong to Melbourne fast rail done and constructed in two years time. The member for Corangamite has been one of the greatest advocates of this particular fast rail. It will mean no longer a 60-minute journey but a 32-minute journey for residents of Geelong.
I am asked about alternatives. It's interesting, when you look at the Labor Party, where they are on fast rail from Geelong to Melbourne. When the Prime Minister and I were announcing this, the Leader of the Opposition had his union thugs out there campaigning against us.
The minister will withdraw.
I'll withdraw that. When the Leader of the Opposition himself was asked directly whether he supports the Geelong-to-Melbourne fast rail—he was asked this question three or four times—guess what he said? He actually said, 'We want to make sure the rail line from Geelong to Surf Coast is better.' Geelong to Surf Coast is not Geelong to Melbourne. The member for Grayndler said nothing. The member for Grayndler, the shadow spokesperson, has said nothing about fast rail since then until today. But guess what we read the next day? Apparently the shadow Treasurer is going to fund it, with $2 billion matching it. Jump on the ScoMo Express, Labor!
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen has been warned. He will leave under 94(a).
The member for McEwen then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Can the minister confirm that the government first gifted almost half a billion dollars to a small private foundation in a closed door meeting and has now gifted $25 million of environment funds to an institute co-founded by multinational oil giant Chevron which funds Chevron's work in the minister's own electorate?
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on my right! The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting, as will the member for Barton.
Thank you for the question. I will have to take the question on notice with respect to Shell. I think that's fair enough. I don't have the information on that. What I do know is that we are—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Member for Grayndler!
So I will take that on notice. Thank you. What I do know is that we have a strong budget, we have a strong record on the environment and we're very proud of our announcements so far—
I will say to the minister that she's entitled to take a question on notice. The standing orders and the Practice make it clear. If she's going to do that, that's what she should do and we'll move to the next question.
Okay. Thank you.
My question is to the Minister for Women and Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations. Will the minister update the House on how the government's strong economic plan and investment in skills development is assisting more Australians, including more women, into the workforce? Are there any risks posed by pursuing a different approach?
I thank the member for Forrest for her question. She, like every member on this side of the chamber, has worked hard to get the budget back on track and, as the Treasurer has said, back in the black for the first time in 12 years. The last time that Labor was able to deliver a surplus was 30 long years ago.
Our economic plan is working. Unemployment is at a decade low, at 4.9 per cent. When those opposite were in government, of course, unemployment leapt up to 5.7 per cent. The economy under us continues to grow, and there are more Australians in work than ever before. Under our government, we have seen the creation of 1.2 million new jobs, the majority of which are full-time jobs, there are a record number of women in employment and we have seen the gender pay gap fall now to a record low, whereas under those opposite it went up to 17.2 per cent.
Of course we know that we have to continue on with the hard work in our economic plan, and the Treasurer announced that last night. We've committed to a further 1.25 million new jobs over the next five years, adding to the more than 1.2 million jobs already created under our economic stewardship and, as announced in the budget last night, the coalition is committing $525 million to deliver a world-class vocational education and training system. This includes investment of more than $156 million to create up to 80,000 additional new apprentices, which will give priority to those in the skills shortage areas, through our new apprentice initiative, and more than $50 million to provide greater job opportunities for young people in the regions.
The government is delivering the skills today for tomorrow, and we're doing that through our package. We're ensuring that all Australians have the right mix of skills to succeed now and into the future and that we are meeting employer needs. And we are doing this without delivering new taxes. Those opposite have a plan to deliver $200 billion of new or increased taxes—taxes on your retirement, on superannuation, on housing, on savings, and the list goes on. The only way that they can announce any initiatives is to reach deeper and deeper into your pocket. They reach deeper and deeper into your pocket because they don't believe in aspiration. We do, and we're lowering taxes. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Can the minister confirm that only a few weeks ago the government promised $2 billion for the Emissions Reduction Fund over 10 years, but that last night's budget stretched the same amount of money over 15 years and included only $189 million over the forward estimates? Doesn't this just confirm that this government's budget con job has already fallen apart?
Mr McCormack interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting.
( Thank you for the question. It's a good opportunity to refer to our $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Fund. Only with a strong economy can you devote that amount of money to the environment. There is $2 billion to the Emissions Reduction Fund, a fund that we committed to back in 2014, I believe, when Minister Hunt was the minister. We've now committed another $2 billion. Further money in there relates to Snowy Hydro, Tas Hydro and also the Mariners Link.
To the question more specifically, as we have said in the Climate Solutions Package, the fund will deliver an additional 103 million tonnes of abatement to 2030. That was very clear. The auctions to deliver this abatement will be conducted over the 10-year period. Of course, and I'm sure the member will understand this, there is scope to contract additional abatement from 2031 and 2035 to bring forward—
The SPEAKER: The member for Port Adelaide on a point of order.
On direct relevance, Mr Speaker. My question was about spreading the money over 15 years, and the minister is now talking about abatement over 10. The point was about the contradiction between the announcement and the budget.
The SPEAKER: If the member perhaps refers to the last line of his question, I think he might find that it opened things up. The minister is completely in order. If that was all he had asked, we might be able to have a discussion. But when you have a tag line at the end of the question like you did, you just open the garage door. The minister is completely in order.
The allocation of the $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund over the forward estimates also accounts for the $226 million that was still available under the existing $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, which was announced in 2014.
My question is to the Prime Minister. My community, at recent NDIS forums in Wangaratta, Wodonga and Benalla, raised concerns of ongoing delays in access to services and equipment and about the process for signing off on draft plans. Last night's budget revealed a significant underspend in NDIS funding. This is disappointing when there is such need, particularly in rural and regional Australia. Prime Minister, can you please take immediate action to fast-track assessments and address delays in receiving equipment and services, and provide NDIS clients with the opportunity to sign off on a draft plan and avoid a lengthy review process?
I thank the member for Indi for her questions and for relaying to us here in this House the concerns of those in Wangaratta, Wodonga and Benalla. It's important that we are very aware of those concerns. I know members on this side of the House are often raising the challenges that are involved in rolling out what is one of the biggest programs in social policy that we have seen in this country for many years, a policy that was initiated by Labor and supported by the then opposition, the Liberals and Nationals. We are now implementing it and it is an enormous task. You mentioned the budget allocation this year. I can say that there are now 250,000 Australians with a disability who are benefitting from the NDIS and around 78,000 of those people are receiving support for the very first time. The estimates that have been provided to the budget process in the past and that were in MYEFO were based on the estimates of demand that were worked up together with state governments and with the Commonwealth. That demand was not expected to be met in the current budget, and that would see the underspend that you've referred to. It is not uncommon that when you have demand-driven programs—as the previous government understood when it came to carers payments, and the member for Lilley will understand this—where the demand is not met in those years, you have an estimates variation to deal with the underspend. That is about $1.6 billion for that year. But there is a corresponding higher commitment that we have to make of about $1.9 billion that shows up for providing support in other parts of the budget, which shows that, effectively, where one part of underspend is there, another part of overspend comes as a result of dealing with the issues that have been presented. This might come as news to those opposite, who don't know how to prepare a budget and certainly don't know how to deliver a budget surplus.
But to go to your point, Member for Indi, with these issues of addressing the specific plans of individual NDIS participants, we will continue to work to improve the access and planning pathways to make each step clearer for everyone. In September of last year the new NDIS participant pathway service improvements began being progressively implemented across Australia. NDIS participants will have face-to-face planning meetings that deliver easy-to-understand and accessible plans, supported by a consistent single point of contact. The government and the NDIA are under no illusions that delivering this groundbreaking reform will inevitably involve some very significant challenges. The important thing is that we all maintain our support for this very important program. Our government is fully funding the NDIS. The per-participant estimates in the budget are exactly as they were before—no change. Every single case that is evaluated and assessed and granted will get the support it needs under the NDIS. I'd be very much pleased if this House could maintain its bipartisan views— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how a stronger economy supports our law enforcement agencies to keep Australians safe? How might different approaches to our national security undermine this support?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Like all of us, we want to see our policing agencies properly resourced so that they can fight, for example, the scourge of ice and the misuse of methamphetamine, particularly across many rural communities but right across the country. There will be people in the gallery today and people watching this broadcast who have seen the lives of some members of their family destroyed because of the use of illicit drugs. People will understand that communities are ripped apart when people's lives are destroyed by drug use. That's why in this budget the government has put $615 million of further funding into the AFP. It is the largest single funding measure for the AFP's domestic policing capabilities in over a decade. It goes directly, along with other funding that we've provided to Home Affairs agencies, to help fight the scourge of ice and other drugs. And that can only happen if you manage the economy well.
The trouble is that when Labor were in power—in fact, right back to 1989—they never delivered a budget where there was a profit. They delivered a loss in every budget that they presided over. It got so bad that it got to the point where Labor ran out of money in government. They stopped listing drugs on the PBS. And what else did they do? They cut money from the AFP in the years 2010-11 and 2013-14; they cut $128 million from the AFP. When the Labor Party were in government last time and they ran out of money, they cut $30 million and 88 staff from the ACCC. They cut $27 million and 56 staff from AUSTRAC. And—listen to this, Mr Speaker—when they lost control of our borders, spent $16 billion and completely ran out of money, they cut $735 million and 700 staff from Customs. What happened? Drugs flowed across our borders, gun parts came across the borders, and they lost control of people movements across our borders as well. So there are real and tangible benefits in making sure that you deliver a strong budget.
It's not about delivering a profit for the sake of it. We are putting record amounts into education and health and giving money back to people when they work hard. We're providing support to national security agencies because it's necessary. Labor will always run out of money when they're in government. They will always spend and they'll always tax. The fact is, as was demonstrated when they were last in government, they take money away from the Federal Police.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs!
To the people in the galleries and the people living in the suburbs and towns around the country who want to see the police do more in the fight against ice: don't vote for the Labor Party, because they take money away from our national security agencies. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
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.
This refers to the question that I took on notice. Our government is very proud to be funding the Murdoch University's Harry Butler Environmental Education Centre for $25 million over four years. This funding goes to Murdoch University, which is in Perth; it doesn't go to Chervon. Harry Butler AO was an environmental advocate and educator and an Australian of the Year. The centre will carry on his work and legacy, which was dedicated to teaching people to protect the ecosystem they are a part of. Harry Butler, like our government, believed in the community, business and diversity co-existing. We are proud to support the centre's work. The other partner is Chevron. Thank you.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Minister for the Environment has concluded her answer. Members on both sides!
Ms Price interjecting—
The Minister for Energy!
Opposition members interjecting—
I suggest those on my left who wish to stay for the matter of public importance cease interjecting.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government's Budget to deliver for all Australians.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Many people, including, I confess, me, would have expected the government to use this budget as an attempt to distract the Australian people from the six years of cuts and chaos that have been inflicted by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. But, in fact, the government chose to reinforce the cuts and chaos, not to distract from them.
When the Treasurer and I debate each other in a few weeks time, it'll be the third Treasurer I have debated in three elections. I debated Joe Hockey in 2013, I debated the now Prime Minister in 2016 and I'll debate the incumbent in 2019. So I'm used to the instability on the economic team of the other side. But, to give them some credit—
How did that go?
I don't think I'll ever be debating you, sunshine! But I'll give them some credit: they've been consistent in their cuts, their chaos, their confusion and their inconsistency. This budget says it all, about all those cuts, the chaos and the inconsistency.
In effect, the Prime Minister argued in his defence on the energy supplement imbroglio that we've seen unfurl over the last 24 hours—not even quite the last 24 hours—that the energy supplement is not really part of the budget and that it's something completely separate from the budget. I guess that explains why it was the big budget drop in the newspapers on Sunday, that the centrepiece of the budget was the energy supplement, which the Prime Minister had actually announced, but is now saying, 'Well, actually, it's not really part of the budget.'
This is a Treasurer and a government that never cease to miss an opportunity—and I'll talk more about the energy supplement and their disregard of the Australians who commit no crime other than to earn less than $40,000 a year in a moment. This could have been an opportunity as well to reset the government's economic narrative, at least in a vain, last-minute attempt to try to get the support of the Australian people. They could have reversed their $14 billion worth of cuts to public schools. They could have reversed their cuts to health. They could have reversed their cuts to vocational education and training and they could have mentioned the word 'TAFE' in their budget speech, perhaps, as an important sign to show that they had got the message and that they had learnt the lesson. The funding and allocation that we had for apprentices last night goes nowhere near reversing the cuts that we have seen over the last six years—the $3 billion worth of cuts that we've seen and the 150,000 fewer apprentices who have been employed since the Liberals came to office. So we see more of the same.
We also see more evidence in the budget that the economy is not working for working people. We see confirmation of slowing wages growth, slowing economic growth and slowing consumption growth. Indeed, wages growth is worth some attention, because wages growth is important for the economy. It's anaemic; that's not good for employees and it's not good for our economy.
Of course wages growth is also important in determining how big the budget surplus is. Every single Liberal budget has seen wages growth downgraded. On every single occasion a Liberal Treasurer has risen to deliver a budget they've predicted wages growth and then at the next budget they've had to fess up that they got it wrong. Not once have they delivered. In fact, last night's budget saw wages growth in 2018-19 of 2½ per cent, edging up quite a bit to 2¾ per cent in 2019-20, then shooting up like a magic beanstalk to 3¼ per cent and then 3½ per cent, with no policy basis and no grounds to think that they've got policies to see wages growth. It just simply assumes wages growth gets to 3½ per cent by 2021.
The Treasurer, assuming he'll get wages growth of 3½ per cent by 2021 is a bit like me assuming I might look like Rob Lowe by 2021! I might hope it happens, but I doubt very much it will! And I certainly wouldn't base my policies on the hope that it does happen. You need a bit more than hope when you're writing economic policy.
What we need to do is assume, actually, that the government's lack of action on wages growth will continue to flow through and that we need a government in Australia which actually has a wages policy. The only way we'll get a government with wages policy is to change the government.
But I do want to turn, of course, to the centrepiece of the imbroglio of this budget, which is the energy relief payments. As I said, we had the big Sunday drop into the newspapers that this was the big centrepiece and we had the 7 pm budget delivered. I was told this morning—I got, I confess, a bit of bad intelligence—that there was a crisis meeting at 7 am this morning to fix the mistake. It turns out that it was actually last night!
That's how long the budget lasted. The budget didn't even last till 7 am. They had to have a crisis meeting last night.
Last night, the Treasurer gave one of the longest budget speeches in memory, but his budget actually had one of the shortest shelf lives in memory. The budget speech actually lasted longer than the budget, from the looks of it. Kim Kardashian has had longer marriages than this budget! We see the Treasurer's last roll of the dice—this big attempt to convince the Australian people that they finally get it, and it falls apart.
While those opposite are doing backflips—as they've backflipped on the Newstart payments, under pressure from the member for Barton and the Labor Party—they should also backflip on their insult to Australians who earn less than $40,000. The first backflip is the hardest when it comes to your budget. Once you've done the first one, it's easy after that. While you're on a roll, why don't you backflip on that? The Prime Minister says he's delivering tax cuts double what he promised last year. That is not true if you earn less than $40,000. If you earn, say, $35,000, you get a tax cut of $255 a year—that's $4.90 a week. That's it. That's the best they've got. That's all they can muster for Australians who earn less than $40,000. Again, we're glad that they caught up with our bigger and better tax cuts, but they've got it wrong. They've got it wrong for those Australians. That will need to be remedied, and Labor, of course, will have more to say about how we'll remedy it.
The only good bits about this budget are where those opposite have caught up with the Labor Party. I don't want to pre-empt the member for Grayndler's contribution, but another area where those opposite are trying to catch up is infrastructure. I'm a bit concerned about security in the member for Grayndler's office! I think they've got his diary! They've been through the member for Grayndler's diary for the last 12 months and found all the projects that he's announced that a Labor government will build, and they've photocopied them and put them in the budget. They've photocopied the member for Grayndler's diary and they've made it the budget! The one area where they did show a bit of creativity, the Geelong fast rail, is pretty slow. I was in Geelong with the member for Corio and the Labor candidate for Corangamite on the day it was announced. We said, 'Where's the money? When will it be built? What day?' We now know the answer: the 25th of never. There's not a dollar in the budget—not one dollar in the forward estimates. We were asked whether we would match the funding. I don't think we will match the funding; I don't think we will match zero. I think we could do a bit better than that, in cooperation with the Victorian state government. The great Corangamite con is what the Geelong fast rail is.
Australians really do deserve better than this. They deserve a better government than this. They deserve a better budget than this. The government are trying desperately to catch up with Labor and are botching it as they do. They can't even copy Labor efficiently or effectively. They are a government that have given up. This is a budget document of a government that have simply given up on governing. They simply have no agenda, no vision, no economic plans for the country, no funding for key projects, and they just don't get it when it comes to those Australians who are doing it tough. They just don't understand the pressures that go with very low wages growth along with high costs of living. That's why the government are so broadly seen as being out of touch and also broadly seen as being out of time. I was drawn to a statement today by respected journalist Laura Tingle, who said:
A tumultuous six years of declared debt and deficit crises, culture wars and internal warfare, the Coalition's sixth Budget seems to reflect a government that has collapsed, exhausted, in on itself.
Well said!
We want a government—Australia needs a government—that actually has vision, hope and plans for the future, and knows how to implement them. We need a government with the courage to lay out its plans before the Australian people. We didn't see any of that last night, and we're not going to see any of that over the next six weeks. We'll see that if a Shorten Labor government is elected. If a Shorten Labor government is elected on 11 May, then we can get on with the job of delivering those plans for the Australian people. If the Prime Minister is so happy to have that election, when he goes to see the Governor-General we'll be ready for an economic debate—an economic debate about a plan which is better than the nonsense that we saw last night. (Time expired)
The shadow Treasurer and I agree on one thing—that the nation deserves better than the rabble we see opposite and the nonsense that we have just heard espoused from the opposition benches. You know what? I'd rather those opposite just came in and said, 'Thank you for cleaning up the horrendous mess that we left and for cleaning up the four highest-deficit budgets in our nation's history.' We'd all just rather they came in and said thank you, because, as the Treasurer announced last night, the budget is back in black and Australia is back on track.
For the first time in 12 years, the budget will be in surplus, a surplus that has not been seen by those opposite for 30 years, because they haven't been able to deliver one at all. This is not some wafer-thin surplus. This is not 'the four surpluses I announce tonight' from the member for Lilley. This is a $7.1 billion surplus, rising substantially over the forwards to $45 billion. In fact it's a $55 billion turnaround from the deficit we inherited from Labor six years ago. I'd rather those opposite just said thank you. But the problem is that they can't bring themselves to come in and say: 'Thank you for actually getting the nation's finances together. Thank you for keeping the growth of government expenditure to the lowest levels in 50 years. Thank you for turning around the deficits we left with a $55 billion turnaround to deliver a $7.1 billion surplus.' The problem is: those key numbers are nowhere to be heard on the opposition benches, because those opposite are embarrassed by their complete inability to deliver that sort of economic activity and they are doing everything they can to ensure the nation doesn't remember what the economy looked like last time they were in power.
Whilst any job is never done, the progress that this government has made is extraordinary. We are in a significantly better position on almost any measurement than when we came into office in 2013. Growth is higher. Unemployment is lower. There is a record number of Australians in jobs. Fewer people are on welfare—in fact, the lowest level in 30 years. And, of course, the budget is immeasurably stronger. So this election, which will be called, as the Prime Minister said, sometime in May, will be a choice between a government that is delivering a strong economy and a Labor opposition that will preside over a weaker economy. It's a choice between this government, which is fixing the budget, and a Labor Party that can't manage a budget. History has shown that Labor has not delivered a surplus in 30 years. This election is a choice between a government that is lowering taxes and a Labor-proposed government that wants $200 billion in higher taxes.
The budget clearly shows the next stage of our economic plan. It's about building a stronger economy and securing a better future, not just balancing the books, creating more jobs, delivering lower taxes and guaranteeing essential services like schools, hospitals, roads and higher funding across all of those areas of expenditure. The economy will always be stronger under a coalition government, which allows families to get ahead.
The budget surplus, of course, is $7.1 billion. In 2021 it will be a surplus of $11 billion, rising to $17.8 billion and $9.2 billion when the full effect of the tax cuts comes in. Of course, $158 billion of additional tax relief has been announced for hardworking Australians—more than a doubling of the low- and middle-income tax offset from 2018-19. Taxpayers earning from $48,000 to $90,000 will have a maximum of $1,080 in real cash in their pockets. A couple, of course, will receive double that. More than 10 million taxpayers will benefit, with 4.5 million receiving the full amount. The relief will flow quickly and be available to Australians after tax returns for the 2018-19 year are submitted, in just 13 weeks time. These are substantial tax cuts that people can see, feel, take and spend in simply 13 weeks time.
We'll also be delivering long-term structural reform by lowering the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent from 1 July 2024. This will cover all taxpayers earning between $45,000 and $200,000 and will mean that 94 per cent of taxpayers will pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar. It allows Australians to be aspirational, to seek to work hard, and to earn more for their family's budget. The instant asset write-off has been increased and expanded from $25,000 to $30,000 and can be used every time an asset under that amount is purchased. Of course, the capacity of businesses has also been expanded, up to $50 million, covering an additional 22,000 businesses employing 1.7 million Australians. Already 350,000 businesses have taken up the instant asset write-off, which just goes to show how effective that is.
But this government, of course, is not just delivering on our tax relief, our lower tax and our tax reform agenda. There is also enormous commitment to congestion-busting infrastructure. Our record infrastructure has now got higher, with an investment $100 billion, of which the congestion busting has gone from $1 billion to $4 billion—an extraordinary focus and investment of this government into rail, both regional and urban, roads and other areas of infrastructure.
On vocational education and skills, we're about ensuring that all Australians have access to the skills they need. An investment of $525 million will develop a world-class vocational education and training sector, equipping Australians with the skills they need and creating up to 80,000 additional apprentices over five years for a whole raft of occupations that Australia needs. We'll invest in a National Careers Institute and a National Careers Ambassador. There'll be $50 million to establish 10 industry-training hubs. This is a budget that is delivering for modern Australia.
And we're doing more in health and aged care. The budget continues to guarantee Medicare despite the complete and utter lack of truth from those opposite. A range of life-saving medicines and services will be more accessible and affordable. As the Treasurer has said, since this government has been in power, over 2,000 life-saving medicines have been added to the PBS. In the last dying vestiges of those opposite when they were in government, they ceased all PBS listing. If there was ever a show between those opposite and this government, it is that this government has put over 2,000 new medicines on the PBS and those opposite had ceased doing that at the end of their term. There is $40 billion for the provision of life-saving and life-changing medicines in the forward estimates and $5 billion for a 10-year Medical Research Future Fund investment plan. There is $736 million for mental health, including youth suicide prevention, which, it is pleasing to see, has bipartisan support across the House. Australia should be rightly proud of that. There is $1 billion for Indigenous health and $1 billion for child dental services.
What this coalition government continues to deliver represents a strong dividend from economic management. This is what you get when the economy is in surplus, when the payment systems of the government are under control of the government. And it keeps moving forward. Our population plan will see the easing of pressure on big capitals while supporting the growth of the smaller cities and the regions. We'll continue to deliver and build on our record investment in infrastructure right across the country, including rurally. We'll reduce the cap on our migration program and plan for a more evenly distributed population growth. That's what this government is seeking to do. That is the dividend of a strong, sensible, seasoned budget and a budget that is believable. This is a budget that builds on the last five budgets the coalition has put forward— all of them with believable numbers, all of them with believable forecasts and all of them where numbers have been hit. Indeed, the shadow Treasurer and I can agree on one thing: this country deserves better than the words and hollow promises from those opposite. It deserves a government that says what it means and means what it says and delivers every time.
If you want more evidence of the dumpster fire of chaos, confusion, dysfunction and incompetence in the Morrison government, look no further than the fact that the final Expenditure Review Committee meeting to finalise the budget occurred four hours after the budget was handed down—not four days, not four weeks before the budget was handed down, but four hours after the budget was handed down.
If you strip away all of last night's self-congratulation, all of the boring speeches, the forced smiles, the fake applause and the awkward hugs—if you strip all of that away—for those opposite, the budget was fundamentally only about one thing. It was about hoping that Australians will forget about six years of cuts and chaos which have delivered nothing but a floundering economy and a divided society. Those opposite spent all of their time trying to work out how they can make Australians forget the cuts to hospitals, schools, unis, TAFEs, pensions and penalty rates; trying to work out how to make Australians forget the stagnant wages, the insecure work, the slowing growth, the slowing consumption and the low household saving; and trying to make Australians forget the fact that net debt has more than doubled on their watch. It was a 'budget emergency' at $175 billion; it's now $373 billion of net debt. Since the Prime Minister has become the Prime Minister, they've racked up debt at a rate of $100 million every single day that the Prime Minister has been in office.
When Australians watched desperately last night for a government that had listened to them and had learned from their anxieties, when they wanted the government to change course, they instead got more of the same. There was nothing to deal with wages, insecure work, energy costs or climate change—all of the things that they deeply, deeply care about in the communities that we represent. Last night's budget and the anxiety that people feel in the community were like two ships passing in the night. After six long years of these characters opposite, I think Australians are sick and tired of the most vulnerable people in our country carrying the can for the failures of those opposite and the sick ideology which poisons their policy.
We saw it again last night in the budget in at least three different areas. There was the fact that, when they were handing out tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts, if you earn less than $40,000 in this country, you don't get a look in. That says it all about their sick ideology. There was the fact that they didn't make room for Newstart recipients in their energy payment until it was clear that we were going to win the vote on the floor of this parliament. Then, all of a sudden, they convened a meeting and did the right thing at last—and we hear the pathetic excuses for that backflip from this pathetic excuse of a Prime Minister. The third bit of sick ideology in the budget last night was the fact they are propping up their surpluses by making Australians with a disability wait longer for the services that they were promised. What makes that worse is when the Prime Minister and the Treasurer jump up and say, 'That's because there is a lack of demand for the NDIS.' If those characters were in touch, as this side of the House is in touch, with the needs of people with a disability, they would know that the demand is there. The budget last night failed the fairness test and failed the economic test as well.
As much as those opposite like to talk about Labor and pretend that we're in charge, this is the sixth budget now and the verdict is in: trickle-down economics has failed here, as it has failed everywhere else. The evidence is there in the government's own numbers. The evidence for their economic failures is right there in the numbers, in the downgraded growth, the downgraded wages and the downgraded consumption numbers. Those opposite might want to pretend otherwise, but the truth is that whoever wins office next month will inherit a budget with slowing growth, slowing wages, slowing consumption and a budget in deficit. Whoever wins the May election will inherit a budget in deficit.
Australians aren't stupid. When the Prime Minister scampers off to the Governor-General, whether it is Friday or Sunday or some other day, they know that the budget that was handed down last night was all about the interests of the Prime Minister—the political, narrow, cynical interests of the Prime Minister—and not about their interests. And they know something else as well. They now that, if working people and pensioners in this country want to be front and centre again in the considerations of this place—if they want to be front and centre as budgets are put together and debated here; if they want to be front and centre every single day and not just when an election is six weeks away—the only way to ensure that is to vote for a Shorten Labor government.
A budget returning to surplus. Personal income tax cuts. Record jobs growth. Stronger support for small business. Record investment in schools and health services. Record investment in infrastructure. And, of course, the big news is that the budget is returning to black, reversing the economic destruction we saw from Labor over so many years. This is an economic plan underpinned by our government's determination to build a stronger economy, in stark contrast to Labor's plan to weaken our economy and hit Australians with more than $200 billion in taxes—taxes on housing, electricity, investment, retirees and older Australians.
The 2019-20 budget is back in the black, with a budget surplus of $7.1 billion. There will be tax cuts—another $158 billion in income tax relief—for hardworking Australians. This means immediate tax relief of up to $2,160 for a dual-income couple to ease cost-of-living pressures. We're backing small business, with the instant asset write-off increasing to $30,000 and its threshold for eligible businesses increasing to a turnover of up to $50 million. There will be record health spending of $81 billion in the next financial year. That means that we'll be able to deliver very important investments, including, in the Corangamite electorate, a new paediatric emergency department in Geelong, $50 million for a new women's and children's hospital facility, and a new health and wellbeing hub for Ocean Grove on the Bellarine Peninsula, which will include a new headspace. There will be a record $292 billion for schools over 10 years. There will be record infrastructure. That means there will be $2.7 billion in this budget for Geelong fast rail, which will cut the travel time to Melbourne to 32 minutes. This figure includes $700 million more to duplicate the rail line between Geelong and Waurn Ponds, which will include the upgrade of stations at Marshall, Waurn Ponds and South Geelong. This is absolutely game-changing investment for our region.
In contrast, over four years, state Labor committed only $10 million to the Geelong rail duplication, and we now have seen dissension from those opposite. In a flurry, the member for McMahon says, 'Yes, no problems. We'll find the $2 billion.' Then, of course, we see from the Leader of the Opposition that there is no commitment to fast rail between Geelong and Melbourne. What's even worse than that is that there is no commitment to fixing the Regional Rail Link, which is what this is all about. Labor designed, planned and built the Regional Rail Link. Our services now run slower than they did many years ago. What's also regrettable is that we are being treated as second-class citizens. Labor's had a long time to fix the Regional Rail Link. Our investment in fast rail will mean an upgraded track between Geelong and Wyndham Vale. It will mean a second lot of tracks between Wyndham Vale and Sunshine. Then the next section between Sunshine and Southern Cross station is being funded under the Melbourne Airport Rail Link program. We have seen an appalling failure from the Labor Party to address these really significant regional rail infrastructure issues in our region and across Victoria. If you have a look at the $1.75 billion Regional Rail Revival program, all but $150 million is coming from the Commonwealth.
As I say, this is a budget which delivers for regional Victorians, whether it's major roads, major rail, health, schools or, of course, growing jobs. We are seeing a lowering of the unemployment rate in our region and across Australia, underpinned by our determination to build a strong economy, and you need a strong budget to build a strong economy. I'm incredibly proud that that's what we have delivered. Australians are sick of all the politicking and the rubbish. They want to see action, and in this budget they have seen a government which is turning this nation's finances around, delivering record jobs growth and responsible economic management for all Australians.
Well, you've got to give the member for Corangamite credit for bravery, in being prepared to defend a government that last year delivered 7.7 per cent of the national infrastructure budget to Victoria—7.7 per cent to Australia's fastest-growing state and home to one in four Australians. Australia's fastest-growing city, in Melbourne, has been completely dudded. And Geelong, of course, has been dudded.
It took the Labor Party to build Regional Rail Link. The member for Corangamite used to try and take credit for it. But they opposed it in the House. They opposed the economic stimulus plan. But they were happy to be there at the ribbon-cutting—just like they were happy to be there at the ribbon-cutting for the Redcliffe rail link and Perth's City Link and to claim Noarlunga to Seaford. It's just like Gold Coast Light Rail: they went to demos against it! They weren't just voting against it; they were campaigning against it. Now they just absolutely love it!
The fact is that this budget is big on rhetoric but bad once again on substance. Firstly, they've gone through a whole range of Labor's policies and adopted them: Adelaide's South Road; Perth's Metronet; the Rockhampton and Mackay ring roads; Melbourne's south-eastern suburban roads package; Western Sydney rail. Imitation is the finest form of flattery, I know, but this has reached absurd proportions.
But it's even worse because, in some cases, what they've done is take projects that were cut by the incoming Abbott government, that were fully funded—like the Gladstone Port Access Road and Tasmanian rail freight revitalisation—and cut them; six years later, they've put money back and pretended it's new! And they want people to say thank you.
When you look at traffic congestion, they've got this urban congestion fund. But they believe that there's only urban congestion in coalition marginal seats! I mean, in South Australia, there are 18 road projects; 17 of them are in coalition seats. There are eight projects in Adelaide; seven of them are in the two electorates they hold in Adelaide, Sturt and Boothby—seven out of the eight. So it would appear that urban congestion only occurs in marginal seats where they're under threat!
Have a look at it around the board. For the ACT, there's nothing for the next two years—not a single dollar. For New South Wales, they say, there's $6.1 billion; have a look at what's in the forwards—$241 million of that. That's four per cent—$4 in every $100. For the Northern Territory, they promised extra funding—$622 million. What's in there? It's a bit better—nine per cent, or $60 million. For Queensland, it's $2.6 billion, but not a dollar in 2019-20—$313 million of the $2.6 billion over the next four years. So elect them and whoever the leader is next time around if they get re-elected, then elect them again, and you might get some money flowing. For Tasmania, there's not a dollar in '19-20, not a dollar in '20-21—$68 million over the next four years. Western Australia is pretty good. It's promised extra funding—$1.6 billion. It sounds good, except when you look at the detail: $17.5 million next financial year; $60 million the following financial years. That's it.
And Victoria they've finally realised exists! But the suburban roads package of course they've copied. The suburban rail loop they've ignored, though it's actually critical for Regional Rail Link, linking up the 11 tracks, making an enormous difference through Sunshine, and it's critical for the Airport Rail Link to work. But when you look at Budget Paper No. 2, and you look for the Geelong to Melbourne fast rail, they say they'll offer $2 billion for a project they have no idea of the cost of because there's no business case and no plan; they didn't talk to the Victorian state government before they announced it. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. This is a fail from a government that doesn't get that infrastructure requires proper planning and a fair dinkum government.
Thank you to those opposite for seeking to talk about the budget. It's an excellent budget. Those on this side of the House are happy to talk about it as much as possible, so we thank you very much for giving us this opportunity. We're happy with it for a number of reasons. It spends billions of dollars on infrastructure we all need, it lowers taxes for individuals and businesses and, uniquely for a budget in the last decade, it delivers a surplus. After more than a decade of deficits, this budget forecasts a surplus of $7.1 billion in 2019-20. It is a $55.5 billion turnaround from the deficit we inherited some six years ago.
We've only got a surplus because we've put in the hard yards to make our economy strong. As the Prime Minister says, the great thing about a surplus is that it means you can spend money on things, and we've got a lot of things to spend money on. We will deliver record infrastructure investment of over $100 billion over the next decade, busting congestion and getting families home sooner and safer, while investing in our future economic growth. This includes $2 billion to help drive and deliver fast rail from Geelong to Melbourne; an increase of $3 billion for the Urban Congestion Fund, taking it to $4 billion; $2.2 billion for road safety packages; and an additional $1 billion for the next phase of the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. Congestion is the biggest issue in Bennelong, and this funding will help everyone in my electorate.
Our economic plan delivers record health funding to guarantee Medicare, fund even more hospital services and provide greater access to more affordable medicines. The GP bulk-billing rate in Bennelong is 89 per cent. Last year, over 934,000 GP visits were bulk-billed in Bennelong, 182,021 more than Labor's last year in government, in 2012-13. In this budget, the government is increasing total health funding from $81.8 billion in 2019-20 to $89.5 billion in 2023, up from $64 billion in 2013-14. We've listed thousands of drugs on the PBS, keeping Australians healthy and supporting the pharmaceutical industry, with its biggest employer in my electorate.
We will deliver record funding for schools and new measures to equip Australians with the skills they need. Recurrent funding for schools will reach a record $19.9 billion in 2019, with average Commonwealth funding per student having increased from $3,755 in 2014 to $5,097 in 2019. Funding for all 28 public schools in Bennelong is increasing by around 52 per cent per student over the decade to 2029. There are 6,822 local families in Bennelong benefiting from the new childcare package.
But we haven't just used the money from our strong economy for spending; we've also used it to save people money and put more money in Australians' pockets. While the budget forecasts a surplus, it also delivers an additional $158 billion in income tax relief for hardworking Australians on top of the $144 billion in tax cuts locked into legislation last year. The government will provide additional tax relief to hardworking Australians by more than doubling the low- and middle-income tax offset. Low- and middle-income earners will receive tax relief of up to $1,080 to support consumption growth and ease cost-of-living pressures. That's up to $2,160—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I'll come to that in a minute. You remind me of a couple of retired tennis players looking at Roger Federer, reckoning you used to play better, and when you get back on the field you will. But you didn't and you won't. That's a little juice for you. Taxpayers will be able to access the offset after they lodge their end-of-the-tax-year return from 1 July 2019, which is in just 13 weeks time. In only 13 weeks time, Australians will be better off. After the next election, when we're returned to power— (Time expired)
This is a budget that hopes, when it comes to health, that the entire nation has some form of collective amnesia—that they forget what this Liberal-National Party government tried to do to health in the 2014 budget and the budgets afterwards. Every single time this government talks about health, we'll be reminding people about what they have done. They tried to introduce a GP tax—a tax that was basically premised on wanting fewer people to see the GP when they were sick. They then introduced it by stealth by freezing the Medicare Benefits Schedule for six long years, which has caused untold damage across the entire health system. People are now paying more out of their pockets to go and see a GP or a specialist in this country than ever before. That is the legacy of this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. You now pay more out of your own pocket for your health care when you go to see a GP or a doctor because of the decisions that this government has made.
The other test that we set for this government was to in fact finally, once and for all, reverse its cuts to hospitals. It was their last chance, in the dying days of this government, to finally admit that they got it wrong on public hospitals. We saw in every single budget that the former Treasurer Scott Morrison, now our Prime Minister, handed down that he cut funding from public hospitals and funding from health. In his first—and hopefully only—budget as Prime Minister, he's locked in these cuts. There is a $715 million cut under the current funding agreement with the states, and if he is re-elected then billions more will be cut from public hospitals over the next five years. He is completely out of touch and he only cares about his big business mates. He doesn't care about our public hospital system.
He doesn't understand that his health cuts are hurting patients today. It means that people spend longer in emergency departments waiting for care for themselves or for their loved ones; it means people spend longer languishing on elective surgery waiting lists, often in debilitating pain or unable to work; or it means people are forced to travel far from home, leaving their loved ones and their support network, to get to a hospital that can provide the care that they need. It means that doctors, nurses and other hospital staff are expected to do more and more with less and less. That, in turn, compromises the quality and safety of the care that Australian people should be able to expect.
Right now, our hospital funding is barely matching population growth. It is not keeping pace with the needs of an ageing population or our growing chronic disease burden. It is why Labor knew, when we were in government, that the Commonwealth had to step up and do more. And step up we did, only to have billions of dollars ripped out of public hospitals by this government in 2014 and every single budget since, including this one. Yet there was not, as we know, an extra cent for public hospital funding to match Labor's commitments.
Bill Shorten and Labor, by stark contrast, will deliver a fair go for our public hospitals and the people across Australia who use them. We're reversing these cuts by making massive new investments with our $2.8 billion better hospitals fund. This was too little, too late—a health budget full of reheated announcements that don't even come close to making up for six years of Liberal cuts and chaos. We'll always welcome new investments in general practice, but this budget doesn't even come close to the $3 billion that this government cut out of the patient rebate, our Medicare system. It is a freeze that the Liberals first imposed in 2014, and now they're saying—just some six weeks before the election—that they might need to lift it. Australians will see this for exactly what it is; it is a cynical con job, a political tactic, not a genuine commitment to Medicare or our healthcare system. The rest of the budget, when it comes to health, is full of reheated announcements. There's very little new money and certainly no strategy, innovation or vision. In a few weeks time we'll see this government for what it really is, a government that cuts Medicare, and we'll see Labor for what it is, a government that invests in Medicare.
I'm very pleased to follow the contribution by the previous speaker, the member for Ballarat, but we should talk about some facts, and the facts are pretty straightforward. I'm very pleased that the member for Grayndler is still here because we're going to explain once again why it is that some of these funds are not being delivered in Queensland. It's because of the Queensland Labor government and the true Premier, which is Jackie Trad. She is the true Premier of Queensland, and they are stopping everything. In the Wide Bay area, funding for hospitals since we have been in government, in terms of federal contributions, is up 37 per cent. I'm sure this is no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan. The only reduction has come from the Queensland Labor government, which cut some $16 million from our region, from our hospitals, for those public services. I think that is an absolute outrage. So the Queensland Labor government are reducing funding to hospitals. We are driving up hospital funding for public hospitals in Queensland.
To the member for Grayndler, who is still here, which I think is fantastic: Premier Trad simply won't sign up. She will not sign up to the funds under intergovernmental agreements which are already in place. Currently, they have not signed the intergovernmental agreement on inland rail. They're not signing on for massive road funding right across the state. They won't sign the National Health Agreement which would provide $8 billion of additional funding for Queensland. They wouldn't sign up to the skilling solutions fund—some $240 million just for Queensland for some 50,000 apprentices. So for them to sit opposite and say we are not delivering is an outrage.
The Queensland Labor government simply won't play ball and I'm concerned it is for purely political reasons. In my own electorate, the Hinkler regional deal is one of only a few regions right around Australia where we are ready to go. There is agreement between the bureaucrats and between all levels of government. It was scheduled for a federal cabinet minister to be in town to sign on a particular day. The mayor was set up. Less than 24 hours out, the Queensland government changed their minds on the basis that they wanted to expand it to five regional council areas. I don't think anyone who is listening to this broadcast would consider that that is reasonable in any way, shape or form. So the Queensland government are playing games for political purposes, and I think the people who are missing out are the people of Queensland and the people of Australia.
But a quick history lesson, Mr Deputy Speaker. I'm going to play a game of 'guess the year'. Allan Border was the Australian cricket captain and we won the Ashes 4-0 in England. It was a fantastic result for the Australian cricket team. Madonna was top of the pops with 'Like a Prayer'—and The Bangles with 'Eternal Flame'. There have been a lot of people born since then who are currently voters in Australia. I'm not sure if you know what year it is, Mr Deputy Speaker. We might get a guess from some of my colleagues.
1989.
We have a winner in the member for Bonner. It was 1989. What else happened in 1989? Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister. It was the last time a federal Labor government delivered a budget surplus. Can you imagine how many voters have been born since 1989 who can vote at the next election who have never seen federal Labor deliver a budget surplus at the federal level? Last night, the Treasurer of Australia, Josh Frydenberg, delivered a surplus for Australia and its people. It's the first surplus budget since 2007. It demonstrates how strong the economy is. It demonstrates what we are doing to drive jobs, particularly into the regions. We've delivered over a million jobs—as we said we would. So this side of the House is delivering for the Australian people. We are building on a stronger economy, particularly in the regions.
Inside the budget, we have opportunities for those in my electorate. There are 12,182 small and medium sized businesses in Hinkler which will benefit from the government's instant asset write-off, which we've increased to $30,000. As one of those on this side who have run a small business, I know that that helps you with cash flow. It gives you the capacity to buy these items and write them off in the first year. That means a stronger bottom line and more confidence. More confidence in small business means more employment—and that's what we're all about.
We've dropped the unemployment rate across the country in the time we've been in government. We're back in the black in terms of the budget last night. Those opposite will destroy the economy with a $200 billion tax hammer that will destroy all of the work that we've done to turn around their terrible economic management when they were in government. There is an opportunity for the Australian people. It is coming up. It'll be a stark choice between us and them. I say vote for the Liberal-National Party.
I rise as the final speaker for the Labor Party in this matter of public importance debate. My colleagues who have spoken previously have demonstrated what this budget actually stands for. We have highlighted its inadequacy, we've highlighted its unfairness and we've highlighted the fact that it is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
I have spoken today on a number of occasions about this budget, particularly as it relates to the energy assistance that's supposedly provided, but let me start by saying that age pensions are at the heart of what we're really talking about here. For many years, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, we saw that the Turnbull-Morrison-Abbott government attempted time and time again to undermine age pensioners, in concessions, in reducing the amount and trying to do away with the energy supplement and also advocating that the pension age should rise to 70.
I'm glad that we have in the House today the shadow minister who is responsible for the issues around Centrelink. We have seen 2,500 jobs cut from Centrelink and, in the budget last night, another 200. This is at a time when it's virtually impossible to get any service from Centrelink, particularly in terms of wait times, especially for age pensioners making an application for an age pension. We've also seen the robo-debt debacle, and we are afraid that one of the savings measures in the budget could in fact turbocharge that robo-debt debacle.
But the real issue, apart from everything that has been raised today, is what has happened over the last 24 years in terms of the energy assistance payment. In the budget last night it was announced as it applied to some people who are in receipt of benefits, but amazingly it left out most. Significantly, it did not cover people who are on Newstart. Last night the Treasurer said they weren't going to be included and then, this morning, he said they would be included. At the National Press Club in the middle of the day we saw a stunning admission from the Treasurer who said: 'So we excluded Newstart originally from it last night. The Prime Minister, the finance minister and I discussed the issue and we thought it was appropriate to extend it.' I note that the Minister for Social Services was not part of that discussion. Is this an admission of callous incompetence? Who will ever know?
The National Disability Insurance Scheme, as I outlined this morning in the House, is $1.6 billion of the predicted surplus. I remind everyone that the predicted surplus is built on the back of people with disability. The NDIS rollout under this government has been a debacle—five ministers in five years and 77,000 people missing out on the NDIS in this year alone. I've just had the member who represents the Blue Mountains talking to me about the issues in her electorate. Everyone in this House knows that people with disability and their families are incredibly distressed. Some of the cruelty, callousness and chaos of this government have shaken me and my colleagues to the core. Those opposite have made me ask some serious questions about the responsibility we have to each other.
Labor will work to ensure that income support is accessible as and when Australians need it. Labor will work to get the NDIS back on track and deliver on its promise to people with disability. We will review the adequacy of Newstart. Labor believes in a social security system that ensures that all Australians get a fair go when they need it most. Labor believes that we are all in this together and that we all have a collective responsibility towards each other, and Australians can count on this from a Shorten Labor government. My colleagues have demonstrated in this debate just how inadequate, how shambolic and how callous this budget is. The Australian people will not be fooled—they will not be fooled by cash handouts; they will not be fooled in relation to the so-called tax debate that's going on in relation to this budget. A Shorten Labor government will deliver equity and fairness to all.
I'm not sure what budget the members of the opposition were listening to last night, but it clearly wasn't the one the coalition delivered. The constituents that I've spoken to in Bonner today are pleased that the coalition has delivered a strong budget with no taxes that will take away their hard-earned cash. We all know Labor can't handle money. That's why they come after yours. The constituents of Bonner can rest easy knowing the coalition is delivering for them. More than 71,000 constituents in Bonner will benefit from the tax relief in the 2018-19 budget, thanks to the coalition's Personal Income Tax Plan, and almost 30,000 of those people will receive the full tax offset of $1,080, which will go back into their own pockets. These are the largest personal income tax cuts since the Howard government. For a family in Bonner, this money will mean more fuel and more food on the table. For one local dad, Jake Smith, it will mean more quality time, doing the things that he, his wife and their two daughters love doing together—like going to the movies or being able to drive to the beach for the day.
Since we came into government, we also have increased funding to all hospitals in Queensland by 84 per cent, and the GP bulk-billing rate in Bonner is now 79 per cent. Last year, over 739,353 GP visits were bulk-billed in Bonner—179,000 more than in Labor's last year in government.
Thanks to the coalition, 17,564 small and medium businesses in Bonner will benefit from our tax relief measures. More than 17,000 small and medium businesses will also benefit from the coalition's extension of the instant asset write-off scheme, enabling them to invest in machinery and equipment up to the value of $30,000. Investing in business is investing in jobs. When the coalition assumed its rightful place in 2013, the unemployment rate in Bonner was 5.2 per cent. It's now 4.7 per cent. Nationally, there are fewer people on welfare. We're working hard for the hardworking people in Bonner.
A strong economy means that the coalition is able to deliver and invest in vital infrastructure that communities like mine in Bonner desperately need. As many locals already know, there's not a week that goes by when I'm not speaking to people at the Manly markets down on Edith Street, Wynnum, or visiting the Lindum station crossing and witnessing firsthand the horrors of this intersection. I've collected more than 7,000 signatures to fix Lindum. I've hosted ministers, senators and locals at the intersection, calling for a fix, and I've been working hard with the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population, the Hon. Alan Tudge, to secure funding for this crossing. Now, thanks to the Morrison government's strong economic management, the community's full support and my strong advocacy, we've done it. In last night's budget it was announced that the coalition government will contribute $85 million to fix Lindum crossing in Wynnum West. This is not an election promise; this is money in the bank.
Not only have I been able to fight for this funding in Bonner; I've also been able to secure $12 million to fix the Newnham Road and Wecker Road intersection at Mount Gravatt and also $6 million to fix the intersection at Rickertt Road and Chelsea Road. The coalition, in our recent budget, have delivered for all Australians, especially the families in my electorate of Bonner. We're able to do it not by putting our hands in the pockets of hardworking Australians. Just remember, Labor is the bill that you and your family cannot afford.
The discussion has concluded.
I declare that the following government business order of the day is referred to the Federation Chamber for debate: Christchurch attack—resumption of debate on the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee's report on the inquiry into Canberra's national institutions, entitled Telling Australia's story—and why it's important.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—This report is tabled without dissent or additional comment and in doing so demonstrates the support across the political spectrum for its conclusions and recommendations.
Canberra is the heart of our nation, and home to many of our national institutions.
They tell a unique and compelling story—a story about our history, our culture, our arts, our science and, importantly, our democracy.
The committee believes, however, that institutions should do more to recognise and articulate their combined value.
The committee has made 20 recommendations. A number focus on strengthening how national institutions engage with the public.
Many call for greater collaboration between those institutions.
Importantly, we believe that Canberra's national institutions must develop and articulate a shared narrative about their purpose and value that directly connects them with Australia's national story and underpins everything they do. Their failure to do so hampers their ability to make their case for further resources.
Consistent with this, we have made other recommendations for better collaboration, including:
The committee heard that Australians are genuinely interested in being informed about their democracy.
The National Electoral Educational Centre, run by the Australian Electoral Commission for school students, is one great example of success in educating, inspiring and empowering our next generation of voters. It may come as no surprise to you that I still retain my workbook from when I visited that centre as a student.
Likewise the Parliamentary Education Office provides successful programs for students to learn about the operation of our parliament.
The committee would like to see these programs made more accessible to the general public.
However, the committee is concerned that relevant institutions may not be presenting a shared and consistent vision about Australian democracy.
Some roles and functions are duplicated and some important aspects of the story of Australian democracy are missed.
This report recommends a review of the objectives, roles and functions of those institutions that facilitate engagement with civics and democracy.
This may also provide an opportunity to return parts of Old Parliament House to being a working extension of Parliament House.
2019 marks 10 years since the Museum of Australian Democracy was established.
It is timely to assess its focus and effectiveness.
The committee has concerns about the disconnect between MoAD's fundamental strategic role and the direction of some of its engagement with the public.
Its current and emerging focus on critical debates about democracy is best left to academic, think tank or media analysis.
Sadly, the present representation of Indigenous Australia within the precinct of the Parliamentary Zone is chiefly one of protest and does not provide for a broader acknowledgement and demonstration of Australia's rich Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, language, heritage and culture.
The committee has recommended better recognition of Australia's rich Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture within the Parliamentary Zone through the relocation and expansion of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
This would include public exhibition facilities to tell this important Australian story in a bigger way, to more people.
It would also be home to a new national resting place for repatriated ancestral remains that cannot immediately return to country.
This was a large inquiry and time does not permit me mentioning all of its recommendations. They include several relating to strengthening national institutions' governance, and addressing pressures on their budgets and resources.
I would like to sincerely thank the many contributors to the committee's inquiry. I'd like to thank the staff of the secretariat as we finalise this report in this parliament—the present staff and the staff that have informed the committee so well through this entire parliament. I'd also like to thank the deputy chair. As chair of this committee, it has been a pleasure to work with the deputy chair on many of the issues contained within this report and the reports prior to this one.
We've carefully considered all of the evidence we received, and we are convinced that Canberra's national institutions are excellent, invaluable and worthy of additional support and patronage.
I hope this report will contribute to making them even more effective, vibrant and cohesive as the keepers and champions of Australia's national story.
I commend this report to the House.
by leave—As Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I initiated this inquiry into Canberra's national institutions, and I initiated it because it had been 10 years since the committee had taken a close look at the national institutions that so beautifully tell our national story, our national history. They are our national memory. A lot had changed in those ten years, particularly on the social media front and on the digitisation of the national institutions—the way we engage with the sort of immersive technology that is now experienced at national institutions overseas.
The terms of reference of the inquiry were deliberately broad to ensure we had a clear read on the issues actually facing our national institutions in 2018 and 2019 in terms of funding, in terms of staffing and in terms of completing their legislative mandates to collect, to maintain, to preserve, to exhibit, to share, to engage and to tell our national story. Out of all of the issues considered and the 20 recommendations made in the report, there are two areas that I particularly want to focus on, and the chair has outlined a number of others. I want to focus on paid parking on national land and the efficiency dividend.
In my first term, the decision was made to apply paid parking to national land in Parkes, Barton, Russell and Acton from 1 July 2014. If paid parking was to apply in these areas, it was only right, I believed, that the public servants who worked there received some return in terms of amenity, because there were no retail services or banking, and public servants were getting into their cars and travelling to other areas—Kingston, Campbell and Civic—in their lunchbreaks to access just basic general services. So I fought hard to get the inquiry into amenity in the Parliamentary Triangle to ensure that the NCA's planning arrangements enabled and encouraged retail space in new developments. And I successfully campaigned to get a mini-mart in Barton.
The anticipated revenue from paid parking—upwards of $73 million—was to go into consolidated revenue. There were a number of proposals at the time that paid parking was introduced, and also in regard to this inquiry, for the revenue to be redistributed to Canberra's national institutions. The idea is great—but it's great in theory, because the devil is actually in the detail here.
The committee is sympathetic to this idea, but it noted in its report the absolute complexities in implementing this type of arrangement. There is the cost of setting it up, compared to the modest amounts that would be redistributed to each institution. There are different arrangements already in place. The High Court has a legislative framework in place to recover its parking fees. The Australian National Botanic Gardens has arrangements to recover its parking fees, and it reviews its charges on an annual basis. But should these institutions not receive any additional revenue, should we adopt that model of the paid parking money going to the national institutions? And there is the case of the National Museum of Australia and AIATSIS, who share a parking area—how would the revenue be split between these two institutions, which are of varying size and varying footprint? It could also result in disproportionate benefit, with the largest and best located institutions receiving the same—or more—revenue as other institutions which perhaps may require more money. As I said, it's a great idea in theory, and at first blush you'd think, 'Yes, that's absolutely sensible.' But the devil really is in the detail when it comes to its implementation, and the report of this inquiry acknowledges that.
The efficiency dividend has had a significant and detrimental impact on Canberra's national institutions. The impact has been such that a number of national institutions have struggled to fulfil their legislated mandate, within the funding envelope. They are struggling to record, they are struggling to maintain and they are struggling to tell our national story.
In 2008, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit considered the impact of the efficiency dividend on small government agencies in its report The efficiency dividend and small agencies: size does matter and recommended either that an exemption from the efficiency dividend apply to the first $50 million of all agencies' appropriations or that there be an exemption for the first $50 million of all agencies' appropriations where departmental expenses totalled less than $150 million. These options were also discussed in this inquiry, and I am pleased that, based on the evidence we heard, we have reconfirmed the JCPAA's recommendation.
Recommendation 14 of the report into Canberra's national institutions urges the government to revisit the JCPAA's recommendation, with a view to adopting measures to offset the disproportionate impact of the efficiencies dividend on small agencies, including the national institutions. I strongly encourage the government to seriously consider the proposal in the report to set a threshold amount for institutions' annual expenditure, below which the efficiency dividend would be excluded or reduced.
Throughout my time here, I have been a strong advocate for Canberra's national institutions. I have continually called out the government on the impacts the efficiency dividend and the ongoing funding cuts have on these institutions and on our national collections. We should not pretend that these funding cuts to our national institutions are about cutting fat; we should not pretend that they're about cutting bone. These cuts run so deep that they are now cutting into vital organs, which is why this inquiry and this report are so timely.
Finally, I want to thank the committee secretariat for their work. This was a very complex inquiry and it covered a lot of ground, because it has been over a decade since these institutions have been reviewed. Well done to the committee for this report. Thank you to the chair of the committee, the member for Tangney. The chair is a friend and colleague, and we work very well together in a bipartisan way; it has been an honour. I love the fact that the member for Tangney is so invested in ensuring our national institutions are sustainable and well resourced. Thank you to all of those groups, individuals and institutions that contributed to the inquiry. Your submissions were gratefully accepted and we are grateful for the time that you've spent putting them together.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, I am humbled and more than a little surprised to stand here to make my final speech after 15 years in this place, because in 2004, when I was elected, it would have seemed pretty unlikely that I would have been given the tremendous opportunity to represent Stirling for the past 15 years.
In 2004, I had recently returned to Perth and I was asked by the Liberal Party to assist our then candidate for Stirling, which was a Labor-held seat, and particularly to help him with his media profile. That didn't turn out to be such a challenging job, because he got a lot of unwanted media attention and was ultimately forced to resign, leaving the Liberal Party campaign in shambles. All hope of winning the seat had essentially evaporated, but the party wanted to change the story as quickly as possible by installing a new candidate and, after a short conversation in head office, they decided that they would ask me. The first I knew of this was when I got a call from the then senior vice-president of the Liberal Party. I won't name him, but I suspect you can guess. He said: 'Michael, as the senior vice-president of the Liberal Party, I think you should do this, but, as a friend, I think you would be mad.' But I politely ignored this advice, won the preselection against five other candidates and then set about campaigning.
At the time I was only 31—probably not ready for such a demanding role—but the great thing was that we didn't know that we couldn't win. In hindsight, and with what I would now consider to be blindingly obvious insight, the seat wasn't really on the radar as winnable, and that should have been completely obvious to me when I came to Canberra and waited three days just to get a photograph with the then Prime Minister, John Howard. I was blessed at the time, though, to have the greatest campaign team that any candidate could have wished for. People that have been by my side for the past 15 years and are now in the gallery—and some of them are even in the chamber today. I want to acknowledge them later in the speech, but I think few members in the history of this House have been as fortunate as I have been with my campaign teams. That campaign in 2004 was a great experience. Like most new candidates, we didn't have a lot of anything—apart from an enormous amount of free advice—but we never missed an opportunity even when we had very little idea about what we were doing. My campaign chairman, John Franklin—and I will say more about him later—had a great saying when we were faced with things we weren't sure we could pull off: 'If it's worth doing, it's worth doing badly!' With that in mind, we gave everything a go. A couple of youngish guys worked on my campaign at the time and they've gone on to serve with me in both houses—Mathias Cormann, Dean Smith and Christian Porter. With a lot of energy and a lot of effort, over time, we built a fantastic campaign and, as success attracted success, we went on to get a swing of over seven per cent and won by 3,000 votes.
I then got the privilege, afforded to very few Australians, to represent their community in this place. I was always mindful that Stirling was a marginal seat, and we always worked hard to keep on winning—no more so than in 2007 when Labor, and everyone else, thought they would win the seat back with a star candidate. But again we worked hard and got the right result, even though it was a tough election for the Liberal Party and most other members of the class of 2004 were voted out. I remember quite distinctly that on polling day in 2007 The West Australian, the local paper, published on its front page a poll from the Stirling seat that said we were going to lose, which was very unwelcome news to wake up to on polling day. But again we overcame the odds and we managed to maintain our slim margin at that election.
Since being elected in 2004, it's been an immense privilege for me to serve the people of Stirling, the Liberal Party and Australia. As Minister for Justice from 2013 to the end of 2017, I worked very closely with our law enforcement agencies to help make Australia a safer and more secure nation. There is much that I am proud of following my time at the helm with justice and, later on, counterterrorism. That was a time when Australia was faced with a significant deterioration in the international security environment that coincided with the creation and rise of the so-called Islamic State that quickly took over large parts of Syria and Iraq. This energised the existing ideology of radical Islamic terrorism and incited a small group of Australians to initially join them in the Middle East and then ultimately remain in Australia and look for ways to kill and maim other Australians.
I don't think it's really well understood during that time that, in Australia, we avoided 14 significant terrorist attacks because they were stopped by our authorities. This occurred primarily because of the great work of our agencies. But they were able to achieve it because of the changes that we made to our legal regime that gave them the powers, backed up by the resources, to do the job. Counterterrorism funding increased substantially during this time. And we strengthened our intelligence capabilities, passing legislation to strengthen our ability to investigate, monitor, arrest and prosecute homegrown extremists and returning foreign fighters. Much of this was controversial at the time. But our efforts led the world, and their worth has been well and truly proven by the results.
There are also other things that I'm very proud of from my time in that ministry. We strengthened the powers of AUSTRAC, our anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing agency, to crack down on money laundering and terrorism financing, and introduced laws to tackle foreign bribery and corporate crime. We established the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to combine the intelligence, information and research capabilities of the Australian Crime Commission, CrimTrac and the Australian Institute of Criminology into a single agency. The creation of this new agency was a result of painstaking and difficult negotiations with the states and territories and we had to be exceptionally tenacious to finally deliver that.
We delivered a national unexplained wealth regime to take the profit motive out of organised crime. Again, I had to work very closely with state and territory counterparts to prioritise this scheme, noting that organised criminals do not respect state and territory boundaries. Now we have a national cooperative scheme targeting illegitimate wealth which has given our law enforcement agencies greater powers to seize criminal assets. We implemented Carly's Law to crack down on online child sex predators and we put in place the biggest crackdown on child sex tourism ever by banning passports for all registered child sex offenders.
The National Firearms Amnesty, which I oversaw, was an extraordinary success, with more than 57,000 firearms being handed in across Australia. Our country is a safer place as a result. As minister, I strengthened the National Firearms Agreement after very difficult and protracted negotiations with the states and territories. This built on one of the proudest legacies from the Howard government. My first job in politics was with Gary Humphries, who was then the ACT police minister, and I saw firsthand in 1996 how difficult it was to implement the NFA even here in Canberra. When you are Prime Minister—as John Howard was at the time—and people tell you that the policy you are championing will make you one of Australia's shortest-serving leaders but you do it anyway, because you know it's the right thing to do, it shows real leadership. There is no doubt that those laws that make it virtually impossible for somebody to get high-powered weapons in Australia have made an enormous contribution to our success against would-be terrorists and in avoiding the horror we have seen of attacks overseas.
We also set up the National Anti-Gang Squad to combat organised crime and bikie gangs. We made significant inroads towards stopping the flow of illicit drugs, with record seizures and record arrests. We implemented Taskforce Blaze, a joint task force with Chinese authorities that has helped stem the flow of illicit drugs reaching our shores. We unlocked the Proceeds of Crime Account to ensure that these funds went towards fighting crime. I was also proud to provide the Australian Federal Police with a record $321 million funding injection, which was then the largest investment in their domestic capability in a decade.
During this time, I also had responsibility for emergency management and got to see the extraordinary resilience of many Australians facing the most devastating circumstances that people can endure—cyclones, fires and floods. We worked hard during every natural disaster to make sure that people affected got the best possible support they could from their federal government.
In human services and digital transformation, we have gone about the steady and methodical work of delivering the services that Australians need and want. I've tried to focus on one single objective, and that is to improve service delivery. New technologies provide us with a wonderful opportunity to do this, and that is why the two portfolios of human services and digital transformation were rightly put together.
In the last financial year, we saw 736 million self-service claims lodged online—meaning each was completed at a time and a place that suited the customer. We have driven a further uptake of digital Medicare claims, almost all of which are now completed online. Medicare is a great example of government services working best when they are completely seamless and easy to use. We have made strong inroads in our efforts to improve our phone service times and processing times for claims. We have done this by employing an extra 2,750 staff to ensure that the services we deliver are there for those who need them. We've worked across government to implement the National Redress Scheme and the childcare subsidy, to make changes to the farm household allowance and to progressively enable online services for child support customers.
As digital transformation minister, I was pleased to release our first digital transformation strategy and road map for Australia's digital future. We are already world leaders, and the strategy outlines our plans to make sure this remains the case out to 2025. We want digital services for the benefit of all Australians so that government is easy to deal with, eliminating the need to deal with multiple agencies or multiple layers of government.
In a world where productivity gains are harder and harder to come by, technological advances are perhaps some of the best opportunities we have to do more with less. In this portfolio, I've had the opportunity to work with many Australians who are at the cutting edge of new technologies. I also, for the first time, brought every state and territory minister together in the Australian Digital Council to make sure that every jurisdiction around the country was working together.
We are also harnessing the power of data to improve services and make better and faster decisions. Currently, the vast bulk of information that government has sits idle like a vast untapped resource. Liberating this information will provide untold insights into policy design and make what we do here better by providing us with more accurate evidence of what works and what doesn't. We have started establishing a new and better regime for us to share this data which has the potential to revolutionise government and provide significantly better policy results for all Australians. We can also use this data in conjunction with new technology to provide tailored services to our customers.
During my time as minister, I've been proud to be part of a very effective coalition government that has a good story to tell. We've cut taxes. We've undertaken the biggest infrastructure spend in our nation's history. We've made our country safer and more secure. We've brought integrity back to our borders by stopping the boats. And we've delivered a budget surplus, Australia's first in over a decade. This government's plan for a stronger economy is working, and last night's budget is evidence of that.
I'm pleased and proud that this coalition government has fixed the historical anomaly of the unfair GST distribution that has held my home state of Western Australia at a disadvantage for far too long. Scott Morrison as Treasurer and then as Prime Minister got this done and fixed it, and the people of Western Australia will benefit from this in the years and decades to come.
Of course, you can't have served as a minister without being a local member first. It's been a great joy for me to work with the people of Stirling as their local representative. I've had the pleasure of being able to announce funding for local sporting clubs, community groups and volunteer groups. They are the heart and soul of our communities and supporting them on behalf of the government has been one of the most satisfying and rewarding parts of this job. Most recently we've been able to deliver $100 million in extra new funding for congestion-busting measures like the Stephenson highway extension, making the Stirling City Centre possible and widening of the Mitchell Freeway through Stirling.
I think a lot of members making their final speech tend to go back to the first speech that they made, and I made mine in 2004. At that time I was given the compliment of seconding the address in reply in recognition that we had won our seat against pretty tough odds. I talked about a group of people that Robert Menzies called the 'forgotten people'. Decent and hardworking, the only time that they get a chance to seriously engage in politics is at the ballot box every three years. That's because they are busy raising a family, earning a living and trying to balance the family budget every month. They don't have time to lobby their MP or to go to a protest. These families might own a small business. They might have both parents working whilst juggling children. They pay their bills, school fees and taxes. They have a right to expect that every hard-earned dollar they pay to the government is spent with the care that they would have spent it with. These are the people that the Liberal Party must continue to champion. That always means blocking out the noise from those who have the time and resources to shout the loudest.
We are very lucky in Australia to have the system of government that we do, and it does concern me that when many people look at our democracy they don't always feel that. Australia is a very successful country and this has happened in conjunction with a government that is very much a part of that success.
I will continue to work for the Liberal Party and the causes we hold dear, particularly through this election year but also beyond. I'm deeply committed to seeing that Vince Connelly, the Liberal candidate for Stirling, retains my seat.
I would like to thank the party members and branches in Stirling for supporting me as the party's representative. I would like to think Liberal Party leaders Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison, who placed their faith in me by appointing me to the ministry. I'd like to thank ministerial and party colleagues, and I thank my wonderful staff, who have served me so well over the years. I already mentioned some friends I've had from WA who have subsequently joined me in the House, but I also wanted to single out a couple of extra people, Steve Ciobo and Peter Dutton, who have been great mates of mine since 2004 and who have made the good times better and the bad times more bearable. You know a lot of people in these jobs, but everyone needs a few good and reliable friends.
In my ministerial office, I was very well served by hugely capable people, many of whom I'm very pleased have been able to join me today. My office was overseen by three exceptionally good chiefs of staff—Peter Soros, Sarah Wood and now Adrian Barrett. In my electorate office, my staff have done an exceptional job in making sure that people who come to my office for help are appropriately supported. Jackie, Francois, Caitlin and Lachlan will continue to do that job right up until the election.
I want to turn to my own campaign team. I have been exceptionally blessed to have received incredible support over the years but I want to single out two people in particular who are in the gallery today who have been rocks on the campaign team since even before I was preselected. Fay Duda has been by my side literally before I was preselected and she continues to support me even though she currently has considerable responsibilities as the president of the Western Australian Liberal Party. John Franklin came on board as my campaign chair in 2004 and subsequently ran five successful election campaigns. I'm deeply grateful for the enormous effort that he has put in over 15 years. He can now finally relax a bit at this coming election, after a job well done. In my 15 years in this job I've always relied on John for sensible advice about any big decisions, including the one not to re-contest this time. I would never have been elected or continued to have won the seat without the efforts of John and Fay and I'm very pleased they've been able to come along for this speech today.
Most importantly, I'd like to thank my own family. My parents, Peter and Patricia, have been with me every step of the way. They've done what they've always done, which was to provide me with unlimited support throughout my life. Mum remains particularly outraged when anyone has dared to criticise me in the press! I got used to it after 15 years, but Mum never did. Thank God she is not on Twitter!
My sisters, Cath and Jenny, and Cath's kids, Grace and Seb, are here. They've also been of great support to me over the years. I need to thank my wife Georgina and our family: William, Theo, Hugo and our newest baby, Rupert. Georgina has been long-suffering and has basically raised our kids as a single mum. I think it is fair to say that her patience with this job has well and truly expired. I've been very lucky to have had that level of support and I'd like to say how much I love her and thank her for everything she has put up with. For my boys, I would have loved for them to be here today, but the logistics of bringing four boys under eight across the country have proved to be too difficult. Indeed, after a few hours on the plane it looks like Motley Crue are on tour. I look forward to spending more time with them now. When I have been called upon to make hard decisions in this job or to do difficult things, I would always try to make the right call by thinking that I must make decisions that they will be proud of when they are older and have a better understanding of how the world works.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank the people of Stirling for placing their confidence in me at five successive elections. It's been the greatest honour of my life to represent my part of Perth in a community and a city that I love. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: today I have the privilege of giving my last speech in the House of Representatives. Some very good members who lose their seat at election time never get this chance. Thus is the nature of politics. I wish to speak a little about our nation, about the electorate I have represented and then about some personal matters.
I have given 10 years of my life to the service of regional Australia, first as the vice president and then the president of the Victorian Farmers Federation and then as the federal member for Mallee. When I started, I couldn't even tie a tie. I remember offering what inadequate support I could to communities in the aftermath of the Black Saturday bushfires as they grappled with the loss of livelihoods and loved ones. I assisted and fought for communities destroyed later by floods and have always defended hardworking rural Australians, who contribute so much to our culture, environment and economy and who often don't get adequate services in return.
I have always said that parliament is made up of less-than-perfect people governing less-than-perfect people. I mentioned Theodore Roosevelt in my first speech in this chamber, arguably one of the greatest presidents of the United States of America. Later in life, when reflecting upon his time as president, Roosevelt was reported to have said that he got it right about 50 per cent of the time. I don't know if I got it right 50 per cent of the time, but I've always tried to listen to both sides of any debate and make a considered judgement at that time.
I am proud of the fact that, during my six years in office, I have never been thrown out of this chamber. Some members appear to think that being thrown out is something to be proud of—there's still time! I would remind them that the children of Australia are watching and they expect and deserve better. This is a place for passion, however. The battle for ideas and the future direction of our country should be a place for rigorous debate—debate and then compromise, because we must govern for a result for everyone. I take personal satisfaction in the fact that I have friends on all sides of the political spectrum. When I was chair of the House of Representatives environment and energy committee, I oversaw a report into how to future-build Australia's electricity grid and reached a consensus report with the member for Melbourne, the member for Hughes and the member for Shortland—Liberal, National, Labor and Greens agreeing on energy policy.
I believe there are some areas of national policy that still need to be addressed. I remain concerned about the level of fuel reserve Australia holds for Defence. I have always felt uneasy about a ticketing-system approach to guarantee fuel supply if we encounter another major conflict. The defence of the Australian people is the most important role of the Australian parliament, and a military without enough fuel ceases to be effective.
I have always held to the belief that the resources of the Commonwealth are the wealth of the common people. The east coast of Australia should have a 15 per cent natural gas reservation policy, such as is implemented currently in Western Australia. Access to natural gas at a lower cost would fundamentally lower electricity prices and, due to the instant nature of gas generators, would allow for more renewable energy to reliably come onto our electricity grid.
The two essential elements for Australian people to prosper are the ability to get a job and to achieve homeownership. I am proud of our government for its strong focus on getting the economic settings right for job creation. In my electorate, the opportunities and jobs that have come through international trade agreements have produced a confidence that is very visible. We must reward those who take a risk and who get out of bed early and work harder than those who don't. A country is only wealthy when its citizens, through their private endeavours, become wealthy.
I do, however, remain concerned about the credit squeeze and the reluctance of banks to back families to buy a modest first home. There are many in my community whose rental payments exceed what their mortgage repayments would be if they were able to access finance. I believe that, if a family or an individual has a perfect three-year rental history, then this should reduce the initial deposit required to access finance. Getting Australians into homeownership sooner is the best way to ensure financial stability for our country.
I have always been a strong and forceful advocate for Australia's aid budget. I am disappointed that it was reduced from $5 billion annually to $3.8 billion before being increased to $4 billion. To many Australians this seems like a lot of money, but, put in context that the federal government's expenditure on all projects is $470 billion or thereabouts annually, our aid budget is less than one per cent of total expenditure. When I talk about our aid being used as medicine for children, microfinance for women and girls in developing countries, agricultural information exchange so people can grow their own food, law and order assistance so there is increased security, and food parcels so people don't starve and they stay in their own countries instead of joining the millions on the move seeking refuge, people tend to grasp why I have a passion for this area. I have refused to allow Australian aid to be Left or Right in politics. This is about who we are as a nation—a generous, compassionate people who believe that a fair go extends to all citizens of the world, not just Australians. Whatever we spend in this area must be done wisely, but we must celebrate and be proud of Australia's contribution to the poorer people of the world.
Whilst I come to Canberra, I prefer the sweeping wheat fields of the Wimmera-Mallee and the people who live there. I will miss being an advocate of the good people who live in these communities. In many ways, a member of parliament is their last line of defence when the system has failed them. My office staff and I often assisted with Centrelink, immigration and other personal problems. The best part of the job is being out in the electorate encouraging, assisting and gaining their ideas and bringing them back here. Australia-wide intervention orders for victims of family violence, Safe Haven Enterprise visas for refugees to live and work in the country and free continuous glucose monitors for children with type 1 diabetes are all policy ideas that came from the Wimmera-Mallee and are now national initiatives.
We have addressed many of the mobile phone blackspots across the electorate so people can run first-world businesses as well as feel connected and safe. We have three new headspace youth mental health facilities to support children; a cancer centre in Horsham; an irradiation bunker for cancer sufferers to be built in Mildura; better programs around attracting and training doctors for our regions; more money for roads, rail and bridges; a weather radar; new sports and community infrastructure under planning; and construction right across the Wimmera-Mallee. We're now into our second billion dollars of federal funding into our communities in the time that I've been their federal member. We now have modernised water infrastructure and a sense of prosperity and optimism that our communities haven't seen in a long time, and substantially more money going into the education of our children.
I took the view that I would work constructively with community groups, mayors and council CEOs in all 12 local government areas across the Wimmera-Mallee. I always had their list of priorities and projects. My office would use this as the basis to advocate for funding to ministers, and often we were successful. I thank those ministers for putting up with my painful advocacy and persistence. I have always maintained that, when each level of government—local, state and federal—works professionally together, we get the best outcome. I want to personally thank them for their cooperation and friendship.
I would often smile to myself when some energetic character on social media, often hiding under the cowardly banner of anonymity, would write, 'Broad doesn't do anything.' I would think to myself, 'Imagine if it was just me,' for I often had between seven and 10 staff working with me, and they all worked incredibly hard. I think I can speak on behalf of all members of this chamber when I say that the dedication of all our staff is truly amazing. Yours is a service to the people of Australia.
I have been so privileged to have such quality people in my team, often arguing furiously against my views on some issues—sometimes even changing my mind—but always loyal to serving the people who live in the Wimmera and the Mallee. Thank you so much. I want to pay particular attention to my chief of staff, who's in the gallery, Tracey Mooney. You are admired by all for your courage, loved by all for your decency and respected by all for your professionalism. Your dedication to me and Rachel is undeserved but greatly appreciated. Thank you, Tracey.
To the clerks and attendants of the parliament, to security and the Commonwealth car drivers: thank you for your service. There is a dignity maintained in this place by your presence and your conduct.
Now to my beautiful Isabelle. Upon telling my daughter that I would no longer be the federal member for Mallee, her first and instant reaction was, 'Yes! You'll be home.' Isabelle, I missed the first six years of your life through foster system and the last four through politics; I'm not going to miss any more.
It was said to me recently that, at the end of everyone's professional life, we each get to go to our place of work, pack up our things, put them in a box—I've done that; it all fitted in one box, actually!—and then to walk into our house and either find children who are estranged from us and a house that is empty, or a house with a welcoming family and a partner who still loves us, and this is when we can measure success.
My story is a story of redemption and grace. I look forward to living out many chapters ahead with my wonderful wife, who's in the gallery—long-suffering and very forgiving—and our daughter.
It has been an amazing privilege to serve the people of the Wimmera-Mallee and the Australian people.
I have to report that the order of the day relating to the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Dr John Joseph Herron has been debated in the Federation Chamber and is returned to the House. I present a certified copy of the motion, and I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the matter immediately. I'll therefore put the question. The question is that the motion moved by the honourable the Prime Minister be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation's bilateral visit to Romania from 8 to 13 October 2018 and its attendance at the 139th assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 14 to 18 October 2018, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
I'm glad of the opportunity to make some brief remarks upon the tabling of the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Romania and to 139th assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva, Switzerland. The delegation, led by Senator Macdonald, and also including Senator Polley from the other place, the member for Ryan and me, was the first to visit Romania in more than a decade, and it coincided with the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries.
In addition to meeting with government ministers and members of the Romanian parliament and having the privilege of witnessing their committee process in action, we were grateful for the chance to meet with Australian businesspeople based in Romania at a meeting facilitated by Australia's honorary consul, Mrs Mihaela Nicola. It was a particular privilege to visit the Damen shipyards at Galati in Romania and to walk aboard and inspect a soon-to-be Australian vessel, the RSV Nuyina, whose construction was nearing completion. The Nuyina, whose name is the Tasmanian Aboriginal word for 'southern lights', is the next generation Australian icebreaker and will replace the Aurora Australis. It is an incredible vessel. It has numerous state-of-the-art features and is designed to be the foundation of Australia's Antarctic strategy for the next 20 years. It is expected to be delivered in early 2020. It incorporates new measuring and monitoring technologies that are critical to understanding the extent and impacts of climate change, especially in the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic.
The delegation's visit to Romania was thoughtfully and professionally supported by the Ambassador to Romania, Her Excellency Kate Logan, assisted by Deputy Head of Mission, Mr Andrea Vigi and Ms Louise Kalfagian. The delegation then attended and participated in the 13th assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, where the general debate topic was 'Parliamentary leadership in promoting peace and development in the age of innovation and technological change'. Senator Macdonald, the delegation leader, made a contribution to that debate. Together with Senator Polley and the member for Ryan, the delegation engaged in the work of the IPU standing committees and forums, including the forum of women parliamentarians.
As is always the case, the IPU assembly was an opportunity for us to meet with other parliamentary delegations. We were pleased to discuss matters of mutual interest with delegations from the UK, Canada, the Arab parliament, Israel and a group of Pacific Island nations including Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Timor-Leste and the Federated States of Micronesia. As co-rapporteur in the Standing Committee on Sustainable Development, Finance and Trade, I was glad to work with colleagues from Serbia and Ghana in conducting the debate on our proposed resolution topic—'The role of fair and free trade and investment in achieving the SDGs, especially regarding economic equality, sustainable infrastructure, industrialisation and innovation.'
I thank my Australian parliamentary colleagues for their support of my election to the committee to promote respect for international humanitarian law as a representative from the Asia-Pacific geopolitical group, to which we belong. On behalf of the delegation, I thank and acknowledge our delegation Secretary, Toni Matulick, for her always good-natured, good-humoured and ultra-professional assistance which she has provided to IPU delegations throughout the 45th Parliament. The IPU is an important forum in which parliamentarians from parliaments around the world consider matters of international significance, bringing our own national perspectives and always considering the ways in which parliamentary systems can represent the interests of our communities, guide the executive and make laws in delivering good government. It has been a privilege and a joy to undertake that work in this parliament.
On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Redress Relating to Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, I present the committee's final report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
The national redress scheme has been operating for nine months now. Some 3,000 applications have been received, which is just five per cent of the estimated 60,000 eligible participants in this scheme. Of those 3,000 applications, just 88 redress payments had been made as of the end of February this year. A further 22 offers are currently being considered by applicants, but that's a very small number given the estimated 60,000 eligible participants.
The committee's oversight of the national redress scheme's early stages of operation has provided us with a really important opportunity to make recommendations and changes to key legislative and policy concerns. This report has 29 wide-ranging recommendations to put to this House. Importantly, these recommendations were supported by opposition, crossbench and government members, so this is a unanimous report. It is damning in our assessment of the scheme to date. We note that the scheme is at serious risk of not delivering on its objective of providing justice to survivors.
The royal commission spent five years in a gruelling forensic examination of all the available evidence before it and it has subsequently provided us with a benchmark for best practice. This report has found that every time the government has deviated from the recommendations of the royal commission without any sound evidence to do so this has been to the detriment of the scheme and against the interests of survivors. It is a pity that we are presenting this report with possibly just two days left in the term of the 45th Parliament. Whatever the new parliament looks like, it is critical that the recommendations in this report are closely examined by government and parliament and are given serious consideration, because if this scheme is not brought back on track, if it is not delivering as it should for survivors, then this parliament will have done a grave disservice to those survivors.
We had an apology in this parliament not that long ago. As somebody who worked on the Prime Minister's national apology consultation group, I can tell this parliament that, without exception, what survivors told us in those consultations was: 'That apology is important, but we are going to judge you by the actions you take.' We will be judged not by words in an apology but by the way we deliver on those royal commission recommendations. We've been marked down pretty badly by survivors to date. This report is a great opportunity to reset and, indeed, to deliver on the good intentions of that royal commission.
As I said, there are 29 very wide-ranging recommendations. Some of the very important ones are around the fact that we've said that we should be restoring the maximum payment level to $200,000. For some inexplicable reason—and nobody who presented evidence was able to tell us why—the government chose not to adhere to the royal commission recommendations and went with chopping off $50,000. So it was capped at a maximum payment of $150,000. The committee said that there was no sound evidence for that; as the royal commission suggests, it should be $200,000. Likewise, we recommended that the scheme establish a minimum payment of $10,000. Again, that was a very sound recommendation from the royal commission that was not followed, and it needs to be followed.
There are recommendations around the provision of psychological and counselling services. It was very clear in the evidence that came before us that we need to provide lifelong counselling and support to survivors. That needs to be provided. We know that the experience of that trauma is often episodic in nature, and I have long argued that, if this parliament is capable of delivering lifelong counselling support for our veterans who suffer from PTSD—as indeed we should—we can provide the same thing to survivors of child sexual abuse. I am delighted that this report acknowledges that and follows the recommendation of the royal commission that we deliver adequate counselling services across somebody's lifetime, according to need.
One of the other very critical recommendations made in this report goes to what happens when you have institutions that are not signing up to the redress scheme. As of last month, a third of the survivors who had put in applications for national redress were left in limbo because the institutions that perpetrated those crimes, and sexual abuse on them as children were not participants in the National Redress Scheme. The National Redress Scheme website is, in fact, logging the people who have joined, the people who are intending to join and, if they haven't joined by now, the date they intend to join. But there are still organisations that have, to date, refused to respond to requests to join the National Redress Scheme. A very serious issue for this parliament is how to deal with those organisations. There has been some public naming and shaming. You can rest assured that survivors will be also doing what they can to name and shame the organisations that refuse to join or are dragging their feet to join. There is a time frame which people are given to join and it is reasonable that people have that opportunity, but, if institutions are simply dragging their feet for no good reason, that is intolerable. Indeed, there are no excuses for those who have already been named in the royal commission. They've had five years of knowing that these applications would eventually come. There's no excuse for them not having joined.
The committee, importantly, recommends the consideration of measures that would compel institutions to participate in the scheme and to look at whatever levers are available to the Commonwealth to do so. That might include the suspension of tax concessions and the charitable status of those institutions. Certainly, one would hope that these institutions would join of their own free will, knowing full well that they need to provide justice for survivors, but, if they do not, the Commonwealth has certain mechanisms available to it. The report by our committee, which, as I said, was signed off by all members, makes very clear that we should be exploring all the options available to the Commonwealth.
It is fitting to thank a few people on closing. First and foremost, I want to thank the victims who, again, gave so much of themselves to provide evidence to our committee. That is often painful and, indeed, it retraumatises some people when they recount their experiences of abuse and try to seek redress now. So I do want to pay respect to the courage and the ongoing generosity of survivors who just keep giving in the hope that we will learn from their evidence and make this redress scheme the scheme it really should be—the scheme that the Australian parliament wants it to be. We need to acknowledge those failures now.
I thank fellow committee members and acknowledge the work of the chair, Senator Derryn Hinch, my colleagues in the lower house, the Labor member for Oxley and, indeed, the Labor senator for Queensland, Claire Moore, who was a stalwart in all of the hearings, as was Senator Siewert. I'd like to acknowledge the member for Gilmore and also Mr Steve Irons, who is no longer on the committee but did important work for it. I'd like to acknowledge the committee secretariat: Dr Sean Turner, Ms Pothida Youhorn, Mr Antony Paul and Ms Brooke Gay.
I end with these few words: the committee recognises that no scheme can remove the trauma felt by victims nor adequately acknowledge or correct the wrongs inflicted on survivors. The committee's recommendations are however aimed at ensuring that, as far as it is possible to do so, the National Redress Scheme delivers on its objective of recognising and alleviating the impact of past institutional child sexual abuse and providing justice for survivors. The committee looks forward to working with the state and territory governments in meeting this goal. We can and should do much better than what's on offer today, and it's incumbent on each of us in this parliament to honour and deliver on those recommendations of the royal commission. Each and every time this parliament has deviated from those recommendations, it has been felt by survivors to be a betrayal. That is the challenge before this parliament. There are 29 solid recommendations that I commend to the House today, and this parliament and future parliaments should take heed.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's second interim report of the inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief, entitled Freedom of religion or belief: the Australian experience.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I commend to the House this second interim report of the human rights subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief, Freedom of religion and belief: the Australian experience. Freedom of religion or belief is one of the cornerstones of human rights. As such, the significance of freedom of religion or belief in our community cannot be overestimated. It goes to the core of human individuality and identity—ideals which we hold dear here in Australia.
Around the world it is clearly evident that, when this right is denied, social cohesion, democratic practice and the stability of societies are affected. This in turn can lead to division and conflict and, in the worst of cases, violence and even terrorism. The right of individuals to believe in, and society's tolerance towards, differing religions or beliefs is a fundamental component of any healthy democracy, along with the respect for all other human rights upon which democratic societies are based. The recent horrific attack in Christchurch underscores the importance of supporting everyone's right to practise their religion or belief in safety and with the acceptance of the community.
Striking the balance between giving everyone the opportunity to pursue their faith and respecting the human rights of others in society is not an easy task for societies to accommodate or for governments to achieve, but the importance of doing so is evident, both from overseas experience and from the evidence of everyday Australians put before this inquiry. The subcommittee would like to extend its warm thanks to all those individuals and organisations who took the time to make submissions or appear before the committee at public hearings. These contributions have been invaluable to this inquiry and make up much of the report's content.
The second interim report of the human rights subcommittee's inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief provides a snapshot of the current domestic experience of Australians in the practice and exercise of freedom of religion or belief. While there is much community debate surrounding the manifestations of beliefs and indeed religion's role within society, the subcommittee has found that the right to believe in whatever faith you choose is something that Australian people take seriously and hold dearly. Our successful multicultural society is based on mutual understanding and respect, which cannot exist and grow without this fundamental right.
This interim report examines some of the perceived problems associated with the reconciling of the exercise of freedom of religion with other human rights, especially the principles of freedom of speech and expression and the principles of nondiscrimination and fair treatment.
The report examines some of the proposed solutions that have been advanced in the context of vigorous community and political debate. In this, the subcommittee was cognisant of the findings and recommendations of the Australian government's Religious Freedom Review and the government's response to this review, which are summarised in this interim report.
The subcommittee recommends that, as a first step in legislative reform, the Australian government, in consultation with the states and territories, develop and introduce or amend as necessary, legislation to give full effect to Australia's obligations under article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The subcommittee's work in this important field is not yet complete. Accordingly this second interim report further recommends that its inquiry be continued in the 46th Parliament so that the international situation concerning freedom of religion and belief can be further examined, including Australia's efforts to protect and promote respect for this vital human right all around the world.
Finally, may I thank all the members of the committee. I thank Dr Aly, the deputy chair of the subcommittee, and also the members of the secretariat, whose important efforts and work over the period of this parliament have greatly aided the output of the committee and our deliberations.
I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report of the inquiry into transition from the Australian Defence Force.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—This inquiry had its genesis in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's report on its inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel. That inquiry found concerns were still being raised about the model through which mental health care is provided. Years ago the repatriation hospitals provided veterans' health services in an environment that well understood and was responsive to veterans' needs. Whilst it is not practicable to re-establish that system, this report recommends the establishment of networked centres of treatment excellence for veterans' mental health. These centres would support the development of the body of knowledge and new therapies in veterans' mental health, provide a means to increase the number of appropriately trained mental health practitioners and provide veterans with the assurance that the treatment offered was focused on their needs.
It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of ADF members who transition to civilian life do so relatively smoothly and without major difficulty. However, for a small proportion, transition can be a difficult and potentially dangerous time. Those whose transition is involuntary and on medical grounds, and those whose experience of trauma while in the ADF is exacerbated by stress experienced during transition, are most at risk. To address this, the committee has recommended assigning clear responsibility for transition to Defence and providing for a professional case management approach to support the transition process. The report also supports the simplification of the legislative framework for veterans' support with the objective, over time, of transitioning to a single act.
It is also important to recognise that those people close to transitioning ADF members may be on that journey with them and are often also the first line of support. For this reason the committee supports making transition training and support services more comprehensive, more broadly available to the families of transitioning ADF members and providing access to these services for a longer period beyond the ADF member's formal separation.
The committee recognises that the experience of women veterans transitioning to civilian life may be different from men. However, there is not much information available to inform the provision of specific services for women veterans and the committee has recommended that a study be undertaken into the issues experienced by women veterans and their families.
Finally, I'd like to record the committee's appreciation to all those who made written submissions to the inquiry or who gave oral evidence at public hearings, which were sometimes quite testing. I would also like to recognise the work of all the people in the ESO sector who are working to assist veterans in so many different ways. And I thank the secretariat and the rest of the committee.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the following reports: Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019, incorporating a dissenting report, and Advisory report on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The committee takes its responsibility to review national security legislation very seriously and has a strong track record of recommending amendments that enhance the efficacy of Australia's intelligence and security agencies and provide for the appropriate oversight of their important work.
These two reports build on this significant record.
Report on the Review of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018
The committee's report on the review of the assistance and access act draws on its 2018 report on the preceding bill and looks forward to the statutory review of the act to commence this week.
The report contains three recommendations including:
• that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman be sufficiently resourced to properly execute their additional responsibilities under the assistance and access act; and
• that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is properly equipped to review the amendments made by the assistance and access act and to report by 1 March; and
• that the time frame for the committee's own statutory review be extended to better align with the review being conducted by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
This last recommendation will ensure the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's findings inform the statutory review and strengthen any subsequent committee recommendations.
Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019
The second report I have tabled today is an advisory report on the bill to establish a temporary exclusion order scheme.
The scheme is intended to provide the government with greater control over the return of Australian foreign fighters—and their families and associates—to Australia.
The committee has supported the bill, subject to certain recommendations to enhance safeguards and accountability measures.
The committee accepts that a temporary exclusion order regime may assist authorities in the current environment, in which a number of Australian citizens who have previously supported terrorist organisations are looking to return to Australia following the collapse of the so-called Islamic State caliphate.
Without denying the right of all Australian citizens to enter their own country, a TEO scheme will enable Australian authorities to manage the risk to the broader community by controlling the timing in which, and the means by which, these citizens return.
For returnees who are not already subject to arrest and prosecution upon their arrival, the scheme will provide authorities with a mechanism to monitor their activities while the level of threat they may pose to the community is assessed.
In addition to supporting passage of the bill, the committee has made 18 recommendations, including:
• requiring judicial authorisation of temporary exclusion orders, with special provision for urgent situations so that the minister can respond rapidly to exigent operational circumstances,
• requiring consideration of the person's individual circumstances,
• enhancing protections for children, and
• introducing transparency and oversight mechanisms.
Finally, I thank the secretariat for their work over the 45th Parliament. They work in a contested space. This is a committee that handles a lot of legislation that sometimes can be quite controversial. Indeed, there are often opposing viewpoints, but the secretariat's support has been invaluable. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Dr Anna Dacre, who has for many years been the committee secretary. I've been to the US twice with her and had many phone calls over the last couple of months. Dr Dacre, I appreciate the work you've done and I wish you well, on behalf of the committee, in your next career choice. Thank you.
by leave—The report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act does two things. First, it makes a number of modest recommendations to ensure that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, who is tasked with reviewing the assistance and access act; and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who are tasked with overseeing the use of the powers introduced by the assistance and access act, are appropriately resourced. Second, for the first time, appendix A of this report sets out a detailed summary of the many concerns that have been expressed by submitters to the two inquiries that the intelligence committee has conducted in respect of this legislation.
I hope that this report marks the beginning of a more sensible debate about how the new measures introduced by the assistance and access act can be improved during the term of the next parliament and that the concerns of agencies, the local and international tech industry and other stakeholders can be addressed. Labor tried to begin that work during this term of parliament by introducing amendments in the Senate on 14 February 2019. A majority of the Senate voted for those amendments but the government, which still maintains that this rushed legislation is perfect, has shut down debate on those amendments and so, regrettably, we will not be able to pass them before the election.
If Labor is elected, we would pursue those amendments—that is, those amendments already passed by a majority of the Senate—in government. We would also move additional amendments to require agencies to obtain authorisation from a judicial officer in order to issue a technical assistance notice or a technical capability notice under the Telecommunications Act and we would refer the measures introduced by the act to a parliamentary committee to assess their economic impacts, particularly on Australia's local technology industry. Following that assessment, a Labor government would work to move any amendments that are required to reduce unnecessary impacts on Australian businesses. That inquiry would be in addition to the new inquiries that will be shortly conducted by the intelligence committee and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor over the course of the next 18 months.
I turn now to the report of the committee on the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019. Labor puts the safety and security of Australians first. We support strong laws and seek to work in a bipartisan fashion to achieve the best outcomes for keeping our nation safe. The bill would enable authorities to issue a temporary exclusion order to delay and control the return and re-entry into the community of Australians who may pose a threat to Australia and would enable the Minister for Home Affairs to impose conditions on such individuals once they have returned to Australia, to manage the risk that they may pose, such as the imposition of reporting requirements.
It would be remiss of me not to mention, in the context of this report and this bill, that while Labor and Liberal members of the intelligence committee were urgently negotiating the recommendations contained in this report, the current occupant of the Prime Minister's office told journalists on Monday that 'Labor was playing games with this legislation'. That is the level of contempt that this incompetent Prime Minister has for the parliament of Australia. To him, for Labor parliamentarians to engage seriously in a parliamentary review process with our Liberal colleagues is playing games.
I urge the Prime Minister to read this report, because if he does I think he would have to concede that it is a very good thing that my colleagues and I on the intelligence committee didn't just rubber stamp the original version of this bill. That is because, despite being given very little time to conduct its inquiry, the report that has been tabled by the intelligence committee today makes 18 very substantial bipartisan recommendations to improve the bill, a bill that, in the form presented to parliament by the government, was described as 'embarrassing' and 'a dog's breakfast' by the President of the Law Council of Australia.
While Labor members of the committee have ultimately decided to recommend that this bill be passed, with significant amendments, we remain concerned that a number of issues have not been adequately scrutinised by the committee in the limited time available. Most fundamentally, I note that, as well as describing the original version of the bill as 'embarrassing' and 'a dog's breakfast', the President of the Law Council, Arthur Moses SC, and a number of other eminent constitutional experts have stated that the original version of the government's bill is unconstitutional. This is on the basis that it infringes on the constitutional right of abode. Neither the Department of Home Affairs nor any other government representative has sought to engage with or has contradicted the argument put forward by Mr Moses and the other eminent constitutional experts.
In addition to recommending a raft of amendments, the committee has sought to address the specific constitutional concern by recommending that the government obtain legal advice from the Solicitor-General on the constitutional validity of the amended form of the bill. My Labor colleagues and I do not believe that this recommendation goes far enough. This government has a track record of misrepresenting the advice of the Solicitor-General to the intelligence committee and to the Australian people. Trust is something you earn, and when it is abused it is lost. We do not trust this government to faithfully represent the content of the Solicitor-General's advice on this occasion. As such, my Labor colleagues on the committee and I call on the Attorney-General to: first, specifically ask the Solicitor-General to provide the committee with advice on how the bill could be amended, if at all, to ensure that it has strong prospects of withstanding any constitutional challenge; and, second, provide a copy of the Solicitor-General's advice to the committee for review. Clearly Australians are not made safer by laws that are found to be unconstitutional.
Before concluding, I would like to acknowledge the secretary of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Dr Anna Dacre, who will be leaving the parliament at the end of this week. Dr Dacre commenced with the Department of the House of Representatives on 19 August 2002 as an inquiry secretary for the agricultural, fisheries and forestry committee, the environment and heritage committee and the transport and regional services committee—and she has been busy ever since. Since being promoted to committee secretary in November 2004, Dr Dacre has served as the secretary of no fewer than nine parliamentary committees. I've known Anna since she was the secretary and I was the chair of the legal and constitutional affairs committee during the 42nd parliament. Her knowledge and experience were invaluable to me as a first-term member of this parliament. More recently, I've worked with Anna as a member of the intelligence and security committee, where she served as secretary between 2014 and 2015 and then again from 2017 until the present day.
In recent times, the current government has exerted an extraordinary amount of pressure on the intelligence committee to expedite its inquiries into numerous, very significant pieces of national security legislation. That pressure has been borne with grace, good humour and professionalism by Dr Dacre and her excellent team. I have always known Dr Dacre to be a highly professional and diligent public servant. Her contributions to the workings of this parliament have been immense, and I'm sure I speak for all my colleagues on the intelligence committee, Labor and Liberal, when I say that we are sorry to see Anna go. We wish her well in all her future endeavours.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's first report of the inquiry into Australia's aid program in the Indo-Pacific.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—As Chair of the Foreign Affairs and Aid Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I'm proud to present the committee's first report for the inquiry into Australia's aid program in the Indo-Pacific. Australians should be proud of the achievements of our aid program. People may be familiar with images on the news of Australian aid being delivered in times of conflict and natural disaster, but Australia's aid program also has a long history of working behind the scenes to assist communities to improve health and educational outcomes, increase agricultural productivity, prevent conflict, build security relationships, access international markets and more.
However, aid is not a one-way street. By strengthening our partnerships with other countries, particularly countries in our region, the aid program has many mutual benefits for Australia and beyond. It opens up opportunities for trade, it addresses threats to health and biosecurity, it has defence and strategic benefits and it contributes to a safer, more stable and more prosperous region.
Of course, the aid program also enhances our standing in the international community, and it has been an important avenue through which we have exerted strategic influence. In recent years, changes to Australia's aid program have included an increased focus in the Indo-Pacific region and initiatives in relation to trade and empowering women and girls.
The committee's inquiry is an opportunity to examine the effectiveness of these changes and to ensure that the aid program continues to improve outcomes for our partner countries and, at the same time, countries to support our own interests. In this first report, the committee makes 22 recommendations across three broad areas. First, while it is clear to the committee that the aid program has a strong record of achievements, the committee has identified a need to strengthen Australians' understanding of, and confidence in, Australia's aid program. The committee has therefore recommended measures to raise awareness about the benefits of Australia's aid program and the amounts we give.
The committee hopes that the aid program can be better understood, not as a one-way street but as a partnership that benefits Australia and our partner countries in terms of trade, defence and security, health, biosecurity and more, as I have just outlined. To this end, the committee has firstly recommended that the name of the aid program be changed. The committee has suggested a term such as 'development partnerships' better reflects the spirit of cooperation and reciprocity that underpins the aid program. The committee believes that this will garner more support for the program. The committee also notes that other nations are already using similar terms, such as China, who uses the term 'development cooperation', and Singapore, who uses the term 'technical cooperation'.
Second, the committee has recommended that the government commit to a time frame to increase Australia's investment in development partnerships, aka aid, over the coming decade. Australia has the capacity to do more, and many of the countries with which we like to compare ourselves are indeed doing more. The committee has therefore suggested an increase to the aid budget from its current level of around 0.23 per cent of gross national income to 0.5 per cent of GNI over a five-year period and then to 0.7 per cent of GNI over a 10-year period.
The committee has also recommended that funding for development partnerships, which is traditionally allocated to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, be supplemented with funding allocated to other portfolios, such as defence, health, education and agriculture. In the committee's view this approach reflects the fact that aid is a whole-of-government commitment. The committee also hopes that a more explicit link between the aid outcomes in other portfolios, particularly defence, will reduce the risk of future reductions in development partnerships funding, bringing more stability and certainty to the budget.
Lastly, the committee is mindful that our aid program should be focused on investments that are effective and outcomes that are sustainable. The aid program has a responsibility to maximise the impact of every dollar. As such, the committee has made a range of recommendations intended to ensure that Australian aid reaches the most disadvantaged and most marginalised people in the communities who are recipients of aid. These recommendations include investments to improve market access for women and girls and people living with a disability, additional funding for water, sanitation and hygiene initiatives and a strategy for adolescent girls.
At the same time, the committee is keen to ensure that the adverse effects of Australia's aid efforts are minimised. An example that was discussed in the committee's public hearings was of a local mosquito net manufacturer, say in Mali, being driven out of business when a large quantity of nets was brought in from an overseas supplier and distributed to the local community. To minimise the risk of the aid program introducing these kinds of market distortions, the committee has recommended that local suppliers be used whenever goods and services can be procured at the same cost and quality as overseas suppliers and in a similar time frame. So, in the example that I've just given, that would involve the procurement from the local mosquito net manufacturer in Mali; thus helping local people and supporting the local economy. This will not always be possible, but engaging local suppliers and working within local procurement systems is an important way in which development partnerships can contribute to economic development and improved standards and safeguards in our partner countries.
We make a range of other recommendations, particularly to assist disadvantaged communities—as I mentioned, around adolescent girls, women and girls with a disability and so forth—and to increase our investment in our Aid for Trade program, along with increasing the overall development partnerships budget over time. There is also investing in ACIAR and agricultural initiatives, implementing digital strategies and implementing recommendations from our last modern slavery inquiry relating to the aid program and orphanage trafficking. Taken together, the committee's recommendations are intended to ensure that development partnerships continue to deliver outcomes for Australia, its partner countries and, most importantly, for the people who are most in need, while concurrently strengthening Australia's trade, defence, biosecurity and strategic ties.
Given the scope of the aid program and the committee's inquiry, there are other matters that the committee was not able to consider in the time available. That said, we were keen to deliver a number of key recommendations before parliament is prorogued. The committee has therefore recommended that this inquiry be continued in the next parliament, with the hope to produce further reports on a range of other recommendations. The committee encourages members from all parties to work together in the spirit of this report to build a stronger development partnerships program of which Australia can continue to be proud.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to acknowledge all of the individuals and organisations who contributed evidence to the inquiry, in the 107 submissions and in the public hearings so far. I thank them for their time and effort. I also thank the deputy chair, Alex Gallacher, and members of the committee across the chamber and in my own party for their efforts, time and support throughout this inquiry. I also acknowledge Julie Bishop, the former foreign minister, who was instrumental at the beginning of this inquiry, and our current foreign minister, Marise Payne, and other ministers and MPs in the government and in parliament who have been supportive of this inquiry throughout. Thank you once again, and I commend the report to the House.
Now that this parliament is witnessing perhaps the final days of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, it's timely to look back over the past three years that I've been here and reflect on what has been achieved and on the opportunities that have been lost. We have seen the cuts and chaos of this hopelessly divided coalition government continue apace whilst, at the same time, we've seen a united Labor Party under Bill Shorten's leadership holding the government to account and putting forward policies which we are putting to the electorate. We've put many of them to the electorate already and will obviously put more to the electorate between now and election day.
Our policies demonstrate that Labor is united and ready to govern. It's been a privilege to be part of Bill Shorten's team as we've worked together over the term of this parliament. When I first spoke in this House as the new member for Solomon at that time, I said that I would do all I could to represent the serving military personnel and veterans and their families who are my constituents in Darwin and Palmerston. I'm particularly proud to have been working with the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, the member for Kingston, knowing that I had the backing of the leader and the shadow minister. That enabled me to commit to, at the end of last year, a veterans and service men and women centre. I'm now very pleased to be able to say that Labor is committed to building the Scott Palmer service and veterans' support hub in Darwin. As some honourable members may remember, we are going to name the hub for Darwin soldier Private Scott Palmer, who died in Afghanistan in 2010. I'll return to this great initiative later in my speech, after consideration of this bill.
As its name says, this bill, the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019, recognises and supports veterans and their families, so Labor supports it. The bill will allow government, business and the community to recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and to support veterans and their families. The most critical element of this bill is the introduction of the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. The covenant will provide an opportunity for Australians and the business community to recognise veterans, and their families, and the service and sacrifice they have made as members of the Australian Defence Force.
I think it's worth reading the proposed covenant into the record:
We, the people of Australia, respect and give thanks to all who have served in our defence force and their families.
We acknowledge the unique nature of military service and the sacrifice demanded of all who commit to defend our nation.
We undertake to preserve the memory and deeds of all who have served and promise to welcome, embrace, and support all military veterans as respected and valued members of our community.
For what they have done, this we will do.
In September last year, Labor announced its support for a military covenant as a set of words which acknowledges the obligation we have to support both those who have served and those who continue to serve. It was to cover both current and ex-serving personnel and their families, recognising the immense commitment they make in serving our country and formalising our nation's commitment to care for those who have sacrificed for our nation. This announcement was strongly supported by the ex-serving community, who recognise the need to cover both those in the ADF and those who have left, and their loved ones. However, the proposed Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant in this bill does not cover those currently serving.
In addition, Labor has proposed a reporting element be legislated to require an annual statement to the House in relation to veterans and their loved ones. This statement would detail how we are meeting our obligations to those who have served and their families. This bill does not include such a statement. We were concerned about these omissions and we referred this bill to a Senate inquiry to give veterans a chance to view the wording, provide input and be comfortable with the proposed language. The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade reported on 22 March and recommended that the bill be passed. While we will not be moving any amendments to the bill, we continue to believe that current serving members should be included in the covenant and that a reporting element should be included.
In addition to the covenant, the bill also inserts a general recognition clause which will, amongst other things, allow the Commonwealth to provide general recognition for veterans, given their military service, and the families who support them. The bill also includes an overarching statement in relation to the beneficial nature of Veterans' Affairs portfolio legislation, making it clear the Veterans' Affairs portfolio legislation—the VEA, the DRCA and the MRCA—has a beneficial purpose and should be interpreted accordingly.
Labor is pleased to see that, by this bill, the government will adopt the covenant. As I've said, the proposed covenant in the bill only covers those who have served and their loved ones. By leaving out those currently serving, the government is missing a significant element. Words are important. Symbols are also important, and recognition of our serving personnel, our veterans and their families is very important indeed. But actions are also needed, and that is why, as I previewed earlier, a Shorten federal Labor government has committed to establishing the Scott Palmer Service and Veteran's Support Hub in Darwin. Labor will build this service centre to support current and ex-serving defence personnel and first responders and their families. As I mentioned, it will be named for Scott Palmer, a commando and the son of Ray and Pam Palmer. Scotty was the only born and bred Territorian who was killed in Afghanistan serving our country.
The Northern Territory lacks a dedicated service centre to support current and ex-serving Defence personnel and first responders and their families. At present, members have to deal with complex issues and a range of services, often at a very stressful time and often without support. Often, they do not receive the services they need and deserve. In saying that, I take nothing away from the services of the Department of Veterans' Affairs or Open Arms, formerly known as the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. They do a great job but, outside of those organisations, we still need support. There are ex-service community organisations in Darwin but they're not well resourced. What we need is a hub such as there is in almost every other jurisdiction in the country.
The Scott Palmer Service and Veterans' Support Hub will be a one-stop shop for available services. It will link members and their families to a broader community of support services. It will bring people with similar experiences and needs together. It will provide opportunities for guest lectures, information sharing, community group presentations, music, art, fundraising, volunteering and socialising. It will indeed be a connector. We know that one of the big drivers of mental ill health and people taking that awful decision to attempt to end their lives by their own hands is often feeling disconnected. What this hub will do is connect. This proposal is the result of thorough consultation with veterans and ex-service organisations in the Northern Territory. It is long overdue and will bring tangible benefits for our veterans in Darwin, Palmerston, the Top End and the wider Northern Territory.
I've recently become aware of other initiatives supporting veterans and first responders, and I want to mention them quickly. I have met with Integra Service Dogs, who match veterans and first responders who are suffering from post-traumatic stress with a service dog. They then work with the new owner to train the dog through a skills based program. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress are reduced as new owners take on the responsibility of caring for and training their dog. Integra told me one story of a veteran who had not left the house for 12 years until his service dog gave him the confidence to go out again into the community. This is another reminder that we need to continue to look at ways we can assist our returned service personnel and those on the frontline of our emergency services, and this is another example of a referral pathway that the hub will bring into existence.
Currently, working with the ESOs and a Stronger Communities grant, we have given funds to the Darwin RSL to set up an interim drop-in centre. It is beside the RAAF base in Darwin. It's called Billeroy House. It used to be a community centre until it was defunded. It used to be a place where families could go and spend time together. What we're doing now with the Darwin RSL is reopening it as a drop-in centre. People can go there if they need a chat, and they'll be chatting to someone who understands service experience and can help with referrals to GPs, allied service professionals, Open Arms and also advocates who can help them with their paperwork to get their claims recognised through DVA.
I return to the specifics of the bill before us. It seeks to provide greater recognition for veterans by government and acknowledges the unique nature of military service and our obligation to those who have served. Labor's commitment to those who serve or have served is rock solid. As such, we welcome changes which increase recognition for veterans and their loved ones, such as this covenant.
I want to finish by speaking briefly about veterans and their loved ones. I'm a veteran who's a son of a veteran who's a son of a veteran. Often the families go through the trauma that is relived by the service member. The member for North Sydney gave a 90-second speech before question time and acknowledged Daphne Dunn. Daphne was the last surviving widow of a VC winner. Daphne, at 99, passed away this week. She had an extraordinary life. But wives and husbands, spouses, of serving members often have a very difficult time as their loved ones deal with the results of the member's service, and that needs to be recognised. In many ways, they're veterans themselves as part of the war, the conflict or the peacekeeping operation. The overseas service comes home to Australia. Even in training, there can be deaths. Those numbers are minimal, but there can be serious injuries. We need to continue to look after members and their families as best as we possibly can. I know that both sides of this House want to support veterans, their families and serving members as best as we can.
I note that there has been some talk about a reduction in funding for DVA. I hope this will not result in any decrease in services. I look forward to the minister explaining that. I have heard rumours that the Department of Veterans' Affairs may be moved under Centrelink. That's causing quite some distress in the veterans community. I look forward to the minister categorically ruling that out. We do need to provide the best possible service to the people who have served our country. We need to make sure that occurs, and I'm sure that we will do that in government.
I rise today to speak on the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. The bill creates a new act which will provide a framework for government, business and the community to recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and to support veterans and, importantly, their families. This bill establishes the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. Labor doesn't just announce policies on the eve of an election; we've been announcing policies for years, and this is one of them. Labor announced the establishment of a military covenant in September last year in response to the need and the calls from our community. A military covenant is a very explicit promise. It's a set of words signed by both the Prime Minister of the day and the Chief of the Defence Force, promising that we will look after our defence personnel, both those serving and our veterans after they have left the Defence Force. That is what we on this side of the House require. We ask an enormous amount of our defence personnel and their families. We deploy them to serve in often dangerous and hostile environments away from their support network. We post entire families to other parts of the country, or the world, for years at a time, forcing them to pack up their lives and rebuild again, again and again. When an individual serves in the ADF, their family serves with them. That is why the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant also recognises the immense commitment from defence families, because their dedication is often the backbone to members of the Defence Force. I would like to reiterate the words of my colleague the member for Solomon who paid tribute to families of the defence forces and thank him for his service and his family's service in support of our nation and for the things that he has done. Good on you, Luke. You are a good bloke. Thank you.
As the federal member for Paterson, I am committed to honouring and serving those who have served Australia through our defence forces. The RAAF Base Williamtown is in the epicentre of my electorate. It is the workplace for thousands of my constituents and their families, and this number is made larger by the Singleton Army Base which sits nearby in the member for Hunter's electorate. It's not uncommon to see a mum in her RAAF uniform at the coffee shop or a dad with his zoom bag picking up the kids from school. Yes, pilots pick up their kids from school. The RAAF base and its crew, past and present, are important parts of my community.
Another important part of my community is the veterans' services that support the defence personnel and their families when they have finished serving. National services like the Returned Services Leagues and Legacy have a strong presence in my electorate, and their dedication to the community really is remarkable. There are at least 11 RSL sub-branches doing incredible work for our veterans all over my electorate, and I'm often fortunate enough to attend events with them or for them. I really look forward every year to catching up them on Anzac Day. It is truly a fantastic event in our community. Organisations such as the Port Stephens Veterans and Citizens Aged Care and the Women's Veterans Network Newcastle and Hunter Valley are also important support networks for Australians who have sacrificed so much for the peace and prosperity of our nation.
Recently, I was pleased to present Saluting their Service certificates to a group of veterans. It was a wonderful morning. What I thought would be a fairly simple little ceremony in my Raymond Terrace office turned into something that was truly moving. I presented Saluting their Service certificates to David Paix, from Raymond Terrace sub-branch; Mervyn Hesketh, from Louth Park; Colin Cliff, from Raymond Terrace; John Hill, from Kurri Kurri sub-branch; Eric Keygan OAM, from Kurri-Kurri sub-branch; Murray Dodds, from Kurri-Kurri sub-branch; John Farmer, from Anna Bay; Richard Kidd, from Telarah; Allan Nicholson, from Anna Bay; Geoff Beiger, from Kurri-Kurri sub-branch; Anthony Mulquiney, from Rutherford; and Neville Jelfs, from Salt Ash. The look in those men's eyes when I gave them their certificate told me so much. They were so incredibly grateful and honoured to receive it. It was really just a simple act on my behalf, but they were so appreciative. As I thanked them from the bottom of my heart for their service, I will never forget the look that they gave me, as if to say, 'It is so lovely to have this recognition'. I commend those responsible for the Saluting their Service awards and I thank the government for organising that, because it has been a great thing.
Veterans' services are an important part of my community. I say to those people who are working really hard in this space that I know that it can be incredibly difficult at times. Sometimes people come home changed and, sadly, sometimes broken—never to be mended again. Many of those services work very hard.
The member for Eden-Monaro sits before me in the House. He is another veteran who has served their country. Good on you, Mike. You're a good bloke too. We've got plenty of them.
Labor is pleased to see the government adopt the covenant, via this bill. That being said, we note that the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant only covers those who have served and their loved ones. By leaving out those currently serving, the government is missing a significant element. While it is important we acknowledge those who have served, we believe this is only part of the picture. Labor's military covenant included annual reporting, in the form of a statement to the parliament—a powerful statement—on how the government is meeting its obligations to current personnel and ex-serving personnel. This is a way to bring all of us to account about what we are actually doing in government to meet the needs of these people who have given so much and who currently give so much to us. It is a shame that those currently serving are not covered off by this bill. I hope that changes.
This is an important part of our policy. The government of the day must be held accountable to this measure. This means that they should report to parliament on an annual basis about how they are looking after veterans, how they are reducing unemployment figures for veterans, and what they are doing in reducing mental health issues and addressing issues of suicide amongst our veterans. I can't help but think of that quote: 'Politicians start things that soldiers must finish.' Well, we owe it to these people to stand and be accountable every year in this House. These are the things that would have to be reported to parliament on an annual basis to make sure that we're living up to part of our promise that we will look after the Defence Force, those currently serving and the veterans who have served us so well.
Despite Labor's concerns about the missing pieces to this bill, we understand how important it is to make a start, so we're not getting in the way of that start. We want it to happen. Labor will not be moving any amendments to the legislation. However, we continue to believe there is merit in including current serving members and strengthening the legislation by including a reporting-back element.
In addition to the introduction of a covenant, this bill inserts a general recognition clause that acknowledges the unique nature of military service, the demands we place on those who serve, the additional support they may require post-service and the Commonwealth's commitment to supporting veterans. Labor wholeheartedly supports this recognition and our ongoing obligation to supporting those who have put their lives on hold in service to our country. This bill seeks to provide greater recognition for veterans by government and acknowledges the unique nature of military service and our obligations to people who have served.
Labor's commitment to those who serve or have served is rock solid. As such, we welcome changes, with increased recognition for veterans and their loved ones. Labor is the only party that will look after our veterans. Our dedicated shadow minister, the member for Kingston, has worked tirelessly on this portfolio. She has put forward terrific policies. I've personally welcomed her to my electorate of Paterson. She has sat down and met with veterans, really heard their stories and has taken them away and come back with action in the form of a covenant and this bill. I again pay tribute to and give my thanks to the member for Kingston, who has worked tirelessly on this. A Shorten Labor government will commit $121 million over four years to address veterans unemployment. A Shorten Labor government will establish the Western Front Fellowship, located at the Sir John Monash Centre in Villers-Bretonneux.
In response to continuing concerns of members of the ex-serving community, Labor established a Senate inquiry into the use of antimalarials in the ADF. The inquiry is currently taking evidence and is due to report back at the end of November. Labor has backed in the calls of the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations and the National Returned and Services League of Australia for the royal commission into banking, superannuation and financial services industries to include the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation.
This bill is so incredibly important to our nation and my community. I feel proud to stand here and commend it to the House. I look forward to it progressing but also to it being improved, if we were to take government.
I would like to commend my colleague on her speech, which preceded mine. Obviously, she has taken very much to heart the interests of her constituents. She has an electorate that embraces a critically important base for the Australian Defence Force, with a dedicated team who are serving there now, introducing the Joint Strike Fighter capability. The member has been extremely vigorous and forceful in representing the interests of her constituents to the Defence portfolio team in the Labor Party. She has been like a dog with a bone on not only their issues and interests but also those of the broader community, particularly on the longstanding PFAS issue. We all look forward to hopefully bringing that to a satisfactory conclusion for all involved. I want to commend the member on her advocacy, her passion and her commitment to those interests.
I've also been fortunate to follow my good friend and colleague the member for Solomon with his own extremely fine record of service. He has delivered on his commitment to represent the interests of veterans in this place. There has been no more forceful advocate in our party room in that respect. I know he will continue that great work. I think the people of Solomon should be proud of sending a person like the member to this chamber and to our party. He is doing them proud. He is an extremely fine representative for the electorate of Solomon, which I know also has a hugely significant component of the Australian Defence Force.
I've lived through the process of moving the army up there in the so-called APIN program—the Army Presence in the North. It has made a huge difference to the community and the economy up there. It has been very, very warmly embraced by the community. It has also has dealt with a lot of issues over time, as we've had returning veterans from a period when the operational tempo was intense. That has brought to light a lot of the problems and the issues that we've been seeking to address and, I have to say, there's been a lot of goodwill on both sides of the chamber to try and get this to point.
I think we've had a little bit of a problem with consistency in the portfolio, through no fault of any of the ministers that have served. But I do hope that, after the election, whoever wins—
An honourable member interjecting—
I know the current minister is very keen to continue in the role, but I do hope that after the election, whoever wins, there is consistency in the ministry that gives us a chance to really build that deep bipartisan cooperation across the chamber on the further issues that we need to resolve. There are things that have emerged from the Senate inquiry into mental health issues in Defence that we really need to pursue, follow-up and implement carefully.
I'm very pleased to see, in particular, this bill brought forward by the minister in relation to the covenant. It was an issue that was first brought to me by members of the Defence Force Welfare Association when we were first in opposition. I can see no reason why we shouldn't be going down this road. It had been done in the UK with no budgetary problems or consequences, or in any other legal or liability respect. In some ways, you could sum up the commitment in the simple words of President Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address in 1865. Modifying that for what should be gender-neutral terms these days, he said that the purpose of government should be 'to care for those who shall have borne the battle and for those left behind'—in effect, the widows, orphans and spouses they left behind. That sums it up quite pithily, but there is a degree to which we needed to spell that out. Perhaps it was worthy to have a review to include serving members, because I understand there are whole legislative regimes around them, but what we're looking at here is a value statement, a value proposition, and for completeness we do need to address that in the statement. We won't be moving any amendments, of course, but we do think that there is merit in that.
I think what we're asking here is important, the general recognition of these members who have served and who are serving. I've spoken before about the fact that it is not just the operational context that has created lots of these legacy issues for our veterans in terms of not only the physical wounds of what they might be doing but also those mental scars. The day-to-day service that a member renders also contains hugely significant risks. I don't know how many times I've been involved in looking into incidents where we've lost members for one reason or another.
We had a grenade range practise once where there was an unfortunate incident where a private had crimped in the diamond crimp in his grenade pin, which then forces you to exert a certain amount of pressure to pull the pin on the grenade. This had been a little bit of a practice of trying to do this to speed up the process of throwing grenades. It was an exercise on a range. Unfortunately, a pin came loose from his grenade, setting off two other grenades in his pouch. Literally, the member was blown to pieces—leg on the wire et cetera. Those who were there had to witness that and clean it up. That is just one example of countless incidents where the risks involved in training to be a member of the Defence Force are something you will not find in any other walk of life. So it is important to consider the whole service of a member in relation to the things we should acknowledge, understand and thank them for. So I look forward to perhaps refining this as time goes by. Nothing is ever completely perfect. Even that statement by President Lincoln was the subject of issues that were raised recently. That was about changing that gender biased language that was in the original quotation. So there is always a need to look back at what we do, what we express and what we legislate.
I would also ask the minister to maybe look into and perhaps address the issue that seems to be apparent from the budget of a $171.6 million cut to DVA. We'd like to get some further comments on that. We need to understand where this issue is happening and what the implications are of that. One thing I am proud about in Labor's period in government is that we took spending on veterans to a record level—$12.5 billion—and that has never been matched either before or since. I was proud of that.
But, of course, putting money into veterans' issues is not the whole answer. It is about the quality of the response as well. There are so many things that are quite simple that in fact have massive consequences. One of those is the process of equipping our soldiers, sailors and airmen. I was really proud to have been part of the discussion and then the formation of a policy which we've labelled the soldiers choice program that addresses the issue that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to equipping a soldier, sailor or airman. The consequences of not getting right the basic footwear for a soldier or the configuration of individual load-carrying equipment can be enormous. The costs that are caused by providing the medical treatment and solution to longstanding problems that are caused by ill-fitting boots and ill-fitting load-carrying equipment are enormous.
I have been fortunate to have benefited from the observations and advice of Peter Marshall of the Crossfire company. He has an operation in my electorate. He's often used by Defence to help fix broken soldiers who may be going through ADFA or RMC and have been rendered unfit because of ill-fitting boots and equipment. What he does is basically bespoke a solution for an injured soldier. He also has countless people coming to him with the long-term consequences becoming apparent of bad decisions made in equipping these soldiers earlier on in their careers.
I must say I was very sympathetic to this because in my venerable years now, at the age of 59—it's 59; let me get the record very straight on that!—a lot of things are coming home to roost for me from 20 years in the Army and numerous deployments and playing service rugby as well on top of that. I now have issues with early-onset osteoarthritis. It is affecting pretty much every joint in my body these days. I have a situation in my shoulder with a tendon that is hanging on by a thread. I'm really not interested in having surgery. I don't have time for that. But all of this involves physiotherapy and remedial action. I thought, 'I will have a crack at looking into how you get into the DVA system to get some of these issues supported through podiatry and forms of clothing that might help, such as shoes et cetera.' Looking at that process, it is horrendous. The biggest problem that our veterans face is getting through that portal. The paperwork that's involved is incredible. For something like osteoarthritis, in effect you have to put in a separate application for every joint—the whole process, with doctors' reports, X-rays and the association with your service for your toe, your ankle, your knee and your shoulder. Every single joint has to have a completely separate process. I wasn't aware of that. I'm grateful that I did have a crack at this to see exactly what was involved. I think we need to review that. If a veteran meets the criteria of a certain amount of activity that you can establish—in terms of running around in boots, up and down hills, with backpacks in their service, what they've done in their service and what sort of service they performed, even when they're back in Australia—and there is a generic acceptance it's highly likely that any osteoarthritis issue they're facing in their body is as a consequence of that, that would make life a hell of a lot easier for our veterans in that space. I think that's worth looking at.
The Veterans' Choice Program is a great way forward as a preventive measure. It will enable soldiers, sailors and airmen to get the appropriately fitted boots, and we're also looking at solutions in terms of greater choice of packs as well—individual load-carrying equipment—to see what we can do in that space. We'll enter into consultation if we come into government. I encourage the current government to look at that as well, and we can maybe talk about that as a bipartisan commitment.
I'm really pleased with the measure in relation to the issue of the transition of veterans to civilian life. I've commented before about how difficult that can be for many soldiers, sailors and airmen. It's a complete culture change, a whole different lifestyle. Various members in this chamber who have had that experience will understand that completely. I'm joined by the new Deputy Speaker, who has been through that himself in this political space. This ain't nothing like Defence, that's for sure! I was just saying to the minister that I only regret leaving the Army every five minutes! Certainly, having watched the shenanigans in politics over the last few years, with the leadership stuff that's gone on on both sides, it's not something that you experience in Defence. That's one example, but we take that on the chin—that's what we signed up for. But there are a lot of veterans out there who don't get the same sense of esprit de corps, teamwork, mutual support and the ethos that goes with being in the Defence Force. Even with the language that you use, you find yourself feeling a bit like an alien.
This transition policy is fantastic. It really takes seriously the job of owning our transitioning members through a few years after they leave the service. This will enable them to not only be supported and have somewhere to go but to also have the training that's necessary to achieve that transition. When you've got many small and medium enterprises who can't afford to pay for that kind of training, they need support to make sure that they're getting the best out of a member. We need employers to also understand the value proposition a former defence member brings to their enterprise. There is the instilled leadership and the training throughout a career that a defence member gets. How do you deal with people who are working for you or are serving in your unit under your command? Even if you're not in that command relationship, you also get to learn the principles of how to work in a team and your individual responsibility. The Defence Force is also fantastic at encouraging initiative, at least in the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force. I think this is a great step forward. I thank the minister for bringing this forward. We have a bit more work to do, but I'm really happy to support this.
I am very proud to stand in this place as the representative of the defence personnel in the largest garrison city in this country. I'd like to start with an example of how incredibly fortunate the people of Herbert are to have such a strong defence presence in our community. As people would be aware, Townsville recently suffered the worst natural disaster in our recorded history. We saw more than 22,000 homes impacted by an extreme weather event and many businesses suffered damages and losses.
On Sunday 3 February, the Ross River Dam reached 244 per cent, and the Townsville Local Disaster Management Group advised the community that the Ross River Dam gates would automatically open at 43 metres. The Townsville Local Disaster Management Group worked with local experts and experts in Brisbane to manage this extreme weather event as best as possible. However, on Sunday, 3 February, at approximately 8 pm, the Ross River Dam opened, releasing 2,000 cubic metres of water per second.
Prior to opening the dam gates, the Townsville defence personnel, emergency services and SES were out knocking on doors in the anticipated flood-affected areas, suggesting to people that they may be wise to evacuate or move to higher ground. My husband and I received a knock on our door to evacuate, and we took the advice of our defence personnel and left. The Townsville Local Disaster Management Group sent out numerous texts to residents throughout the days of torrential rain, issuing regular warnings of what was coming.
I have lived in Townsville all of my life, and I have never witnessed or experienced anything like the magnitude of this extreme weather event. The mood in our city as we prepared for the impending flood on Sunday evening, 3 February, was indescribable. People were anxious about leaving their homes and their pets, and I know I certainly was. On the night of 3 February, the emergency radios and call lines were ringing off the hook as so many residents were inundated by water and needed to be rescued. The ADF, police, ambulance, firefighters and the SES answered those calls in the most selfless manner. Not only did they answer the calls that evening, but for days after and throughout the clean-up process.
Veterans and ex-serving members were also out helping stranded people, some in their own boats, assisting with the many rescues and putting their own lives at risk. Team Rubicon was on the ground in Townsville. This created an organised and effective space for veterans and ex-serving members to continue their service throughout the immediate disaster response. Many of these men and women from the serving ADF had left their own homes and their families to support the community, and many of them, when they got home, found their places had been flooded and their families had to be moved. Townsville, as I said, is the largest garrison city in the nation, and it is also home to thousands of veterans and their families. I can assure you, the Townsville clean-up would not have happened so quickly and efficiently if it had not been for the outstanding work of the ADF, veterans and ex-serving members; Townsville would not be in the shape it is today, in terms of the clean-up and the progress to recovery.
The recent extreme weather event has clearly demonstrated to the people of Townsville that the serving ADF, veterans, ex-serving members and their families are committed to our community, and I want to thank each member and veteran for their dedication and assistance in our time of need. I know that, for some of you, it meant putting your own personal flooding issues on hold whilst you helped in the community, as I have said. These selfless actions are yet another reason why I am proud and honoured to represent the current and former ADF community in Herbert.
I have spoken in this place on every single defence or veterans bill, because our currently serving veterans, ex-serving personnel and their families deserve the strongest representation from a member who stands up for them in this place. I stand here again today, as I have done many times before, to support a bill that supports our defence personnel. Our veterans, ex-serving men and women, and their families have always put the needs of our nation first. They have fought for our country, and now it is time for us to fight for them, for their needs to be met.
I rise today to speak on the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. The bill creates a new act which will provide a framework for government, business and the community to recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and to support veterans, ex-serving personnel and their families. More importantly, the bill establishes the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. Whilst I welcome the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant, I don't believe it goes far enough and I ask why it has taken the government so long to enact this bill, particularly when Labor announced our commitment almost six months ago.
On 5 September 2018, federal Labor announced that we would establish Australia's first military covenant if elected. The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Amanda Rishworth, and Labor's candidate for Dawson, Belinda Hassan, and I met with local veterans, ESOs and currently serving defence personnel in Townsville to announce our commitment. Labor has listened to the calls from the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations and other ex-serving organisations that have been working towards this for many years. The difference is that Labor is completely committed to recognising both our current and ex-serving Defence members, veterans and their families. Labor's military covenant would cover both current and ex-serving personnel and their families, recognising the enormous commitment they make to serve this great nation. Labor's commitment formalises our nation's commitment to look after those who have sacrificed their lives so that we can live in the freedoms that we experience in this great nation. Labor's military covenant will include annual reporting, ensuring accountability in the form of a statement to the parliament on how government is meeting its obligation to current and ex-serving personnel.
Whilst I stand with Labor and I'm pleased to see the government adopt a covenant via this bill, I am a little disheartened that the bill has omitted the service of our current serving men and women. As I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, we have witnessed the extraordinary efforts of our ADF in recent weeks in my community. In Townsville, we continually see the hard work and dedication of our current members and their loved ones, not only through disasters but through their community engagement from both a social and an economic perspective. I do believe these men and women deserve to be recognised as well. Leaving out current serving members is not fair and thus government is missing a significant part of the ADF family. Whilst it is critically important that we acknowledge those who served, we cannot afford to tell only part of the story. I am concerned that, by omitting the service of our current ADF members and the lack of accountability by way of annual reporting to parliament, this is more about the government offering symbolic words rather than meaningful and genuine support.
To be very clear, Labor fully supports the introduction of a covenant which formalises our commitment to those who have served and those who continue to serve, including their families. It is critical that this bill genuinely reflects the needs of all our current and ex-serving members, veterans and their families. Whilst governments have failed before us, we now have the opportunity to get this right. There is far too much at stake here, and our current and ex-serving men and women, veterans and their families deserve to have their voices included in this legislation. The covenant is a solemn oath to those who have served or continue to serve, and we cannot get this wrong. I encourage all interested parties to participate in this process and provide their feedback. The covenant is above politics, and our personal party views need to be put aside in the interests of our current and ex-serving Defence community and their families.
I have met with many families and veterans and ex-serving personnel. One of the most common complaints I hear about is the lengthy and complex claims process associated with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which I believe has just taken a $171.6 million cut. I'm certain any commitment to timeliness would be welcomed by the veteran and ex-serving community, particularly in Townsville.
I will always stand in this place and support greater recognition for our Defence community by government. Labor's commitment to those who are serving or have served is rock solid and, as such, we welcome changes that will increase recognition for veterans and their loved ones. We await the outcome of the Senate inquiry with interest; however, I support the principle of this bill, which is acknowledgement of those who have served and their families. Thank you.
As I rise to speak on the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill, reflecting on veterans' affairs issues, I'll just note that I'm proud to follow the previous member for Bruce in this chamber, who served for 23 years and, for some years, held ministerial rank as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, amongst other things. He was an outstanding Minister for Veterans' Affairs—he used to tell us that—but he was also much loved, as I know for a fact, around the RSLs in the community, not just here but nationally, because of the work that he put in—the very detailed and intense work that he put in—in his tenure of that portfolio. He was much loved by those opposite, too, as I've been told—often more than his own side!
I'm not a person who has ever served in the Defence Force. In taking over from Alan Griffin, one of the lessons which was drummed into me by him when I was a staffer from 1995 to 2000—many a year ago; last century, even!—was that you had to treat everyone nicely. It was a marginal seat; I think the margin was 0.7 per cent. It was the only seat we won from the Liberal Party in 1996. It was not an easy feat, so you had to be nice to everyone. There was a special chewing out, castigation, that you would receive if ever he caught you not giving the gold standard service to any veteran or anyone from an RSL who rang up. However they voted, however angry or grumpy or happy they may have been, there was a recognition right from the start with Alan that veterans deserved special treatment and recognition and understanding.
I acknowledge Deputy Speaker Hastie, who's well-known for his service, and the member for Eden-Monaro, who is also well-known for his service, by most people. I do think there was a low point last year when the member for Hume seemed to have forgotten that he'd served and accused him of being a friend of terrorists. That was when we had a little low point in public debate around the encryption bill, but apart from that I think the service that both of you have given to your country in your time in the Defence Force has been well recognised.
This bill, in terms of recognising service, does two main things: the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant and the more general recognition clause, which provides a normative statement in legislation around general recognition of the service of veterans. I'll turn my remarks in due course to the beneficial clause in there, which is an interesting tweak or use of the legislative clause. I'm a bit of a public administration nerd, having at times been involved, in former lives, in drafting legislation in different portfolios. It did strike me that this is a genuinely interesting, useful and innovative approach to legislative interpretation. There may be other portfolios where such an approach could be used beneficially.
In saying that I've never served—and acknowledging the service of Deputy Speaker Hastie and the member for Eden-Monaro—as a member of parliament you do have some obligation to spend a bit of time each year with the Australian Defence Force for a number of reasons. The work that they do and the capability that they provide to the nation is an important part of our national architecture. Those of us in this place with any kind of interest in our defence, foreign affairs or internationalisation need to understand that. But I think there's a moral imperative on all of us here to put a human face to the people who have served and who are currently serving, because, at the rawest, state sponsored violence or war is the greatest failure of politics. When we stuff up our jobs, when we do the absolute worst in this place or elsewhere around the world so that there's a failure of politics, then it's the women and men of the Australian Defence Force and their brethren elsewhere in the world who are the first to put their lives on the line in the name of duty.
I heard the member for Eden-Monaro acknowledge that it's about recognising not just the sacrifices in the line of active duty but also the sacrifices that are made through the constant training, capability building and maintenance and the fact that much of that work is also dangerous in that people—including people in the ESA—risk their lives simply through the nature of some of the training that is done. So, for all those reasons, it is appropriate that we provide greater recognition as a nation to the service that is provided.
I'll make a couple of remarks on the bill. It does create a framework for the government, but not just for the government; importantly, it's for the business and the community to recognise and acknowledge this unique nature of military service and to support veterans and their families. The Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant is one way that the government has put forward to do that and we're pleased to support it. Those interested in this space would be aware that Labor actually announced the establishment of a military covenant as one of our policies in September last year. There is an important difference between the government's proposal and our proposal. The government's proposal is focused on veterans, whereas our proposal was that such a military covenant should cover both currently serving and ex-service personnel and their families, recognising the commitment which has been made in that way to their country.
I'm pleased to see the government has adopted the covenant, but it's a little bit like the tax cuts, isn't it? Finally, 12 months late to the party, they couldn't quite copy the policy properly. They get a seven out of 10 over there for copying our covenant idea, but we think it would be an improvement and that there is merit in the approach we've put forward to include current serving personnel. 'Copycat from Ballarat' as people in Victoria would know is one of those childhood refrains that get sung, but every time we say it the member for Ballarat rounds on us. She doesn't approve of it. She's not here, but she's probably listening somewhere. By leaving out those currently serving, we believe the government is missing a significant element and an opportunity to do something which is better. It's only part of the picture that they're covering.
Importantly, it wasn't just the normative statement through the covenant that Labor was proposing but a form of accountability through annual reporting in a formal statement to the parliament on how a government of the day is meeting its obligations to current and ex-serving personnel. So, whilst the government have word-associated the name 'covenant' and copied it a bit, they didn't get the point of what we were saying in our policy. We would encourage the next parliament—as I don't think we are going to get to this by tomorrow—to give further thought to the points that we were making in the policy that we put forward because, whilst we are supporting this and it's a welcome start, we think it can be improved upon. We referred it to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade because we thought that it was important that there be a formal process of consultation to allow people in the community, including members of the ex-serving community, to be consulted and be comfortable with the provisions.
In the interests of time so that this does get passed we won't be moving amendments to the legislation. There is still a lot of business before the House. It's funny that in February the government were in here reading bill after bill while they were desperate to not actually have the parliament sit. That was a little curious. There is not a lot of time left in the parliament, so we won't be moving amendments to the legislation despite the fact that we maintain our view that there is merit in including the current serving members and strengthening the legislation by including a report-back element.
I just want to make a few further remarks on the general recognition clause which I touched on before. That clause is there to recognise the unique, special nature of military service and the demands we place on those who serve the Commonwealth's commitment to supporting veterans, acknowledging that there is additional service and support that they may require after they finish their time in the defence forces. So Labor does wholeheartedly support the ongoing recognition and, indeed, recognition in legislative form, as has been proposed to this ongoing obligation as a nation to support those who have put their lives on hold, disrupted their families and sacrificed so much in service to our country.
So, as I was noting before, an interesting extension of this general recognition clause wording in the bill is this overarching statement about the 'beneficial' nature of the veterans' affairs legislation in that portfolio. The purpose of this is to make it clear to the decision-maker. By 'decision-maker' we on this side of the parliament mean human beings sitting in the Department of Veterans' Affairs looking at the paperwork in front of them and trying to make a judgement as to whether someone's claim or request for support meets the requirements of the legislation. That's an important duty that public servants perform. I say 'on this side of the parliament' because one of the problems which we have been enormously critical of this government about has been the fake staffing cap on the Public Service that has not affected the Department of Veterans' Affairs, to be fair, as endemically as many other areas of government but which has seen enormous waste in overheads for contractors and consultants and a growth in the use of temporary casual labour hire workers who do not save money. They decrease the quality of the service in the assessment process. I think it is an important innovation whether an application is being assessed by a skilled permanent Public Service expert on the legislation or a more temporary labour hire contractor under the government's privatisation-by-stealth agenda, which is really what the staffing cap is. Let's be honest: it's privatisation by stealth, forcing government departments, if they are to get their outputs delivered and perform the public services which they are funded for, to privatise, outsource and bring in labour hire workers. For both those cohorts of people making these decisions, I think the clause proposed around the beneficial nature of the portfolio legislation is worthy of support and remark because it may be something which members in future years in different contexts may see as appropriate to put in other portfolios and guide decision-makers towards interpreting legislation in a way which benefits in a positive way those for whom the legislation has been enacted.
The intention of the section is to say that where the provision of an act or the instruments under an act can be interpreted beneficially, then it should be so interpreted. Of course, that is not to undercut specific obligations or deny the fact that in some circumstances a claim simply won't meet the requirements of the legislation and has to be rejected, or that in cases of serious error or incorrect information the debts will be raised and they need to be dealt with appropriately. Of course it's not meant to undercut those other obligations. Departmental training, I understand, will be developed so that decision-makers making these decisions and being guided by this new beneficial intent clause can understand the purpose of it and appropriately apply the legislation to support the intent of the clause.
As I said, one of the most common complaints I receive about the Department of Veterans' Affairs is the sheer time it takes for things to be decided. It's a lengthy and very complex claims process. We on this side of the House believe that a reason for that is excessive staff cuts. It's no great comfort, of course, to people in the veteran community to say, 'It could be worse; you could be trying to deal with Centrelink, or you could be trying to deal with the National Disability Insurance Agency'—which seems to have almost no permanent staff and thousands of labour hire contractors. I do acknowledge that the situation is not as bad as the majority of other agencies in the government, but it's still not acceptable that things take so long. So any commitment to timeliness will be welcomed by the veteran and ex-serving community. In that regard, the paragraph proposed to be inserted which will seek to provide that claims decisions should be made within a time that's proportionate to the complexity—of course we would all understand that complex things take longer but simple things should be able to be done quickly—will be of comfort.
In my remaining minute I'll just read the covenant for the record. I was curious while watching some of the speeches on the television. I thought: what is the covenant? The wording is simple. It's four sentences:
We, the people of Australia, respect and give thanks to those who have served in our defence force and their families.
We acknowledge the unique nature of military service and the sacrifice demanded of the men and women who commit to defend our nation.
We undertake to ensure that all those who are serving in the ADF and who have served are not disadvantaged as a result of their military service.
We undertake to preserve the memory and deeds of all those who have served and promise to welcome, embrace, and support all military veterans as respected and valued members of our community.
For what they have done, this we will do.
It's a neat, simple form of words. In closing, I again state Labor's view that this legislation is an imperfect copy of the proposal we put forward, which we believe would have been better, which would have recognised current serving defence personnel and not just the ex-serving community and their families, and which would have provided an important accountability mechanism through requiring the government of the day, via the minister, to come into this place and make a statement to the parliament about how the government is going with regard to their obligations to enforce the covenant and support veterans in the way they so deserve.
One of those unusual but deeply satisfying situations we have when we are here talking about veterans' affairs is that we are often in furious agreement about the objectives that we have for this group of people who have served our country. It's very pleasing to be able to support this bill. However, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, there are other things we would have liked to have seen in a piece of legislation which is called the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. Let me go through a few of the elements of that.
Of course we're very supportive of the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant, which recognises the special contribution that members of the Defence Force have made and that their families have made in serving this country. But it is disappointing to see that this covenant, which is copied from Labor but doesn't pick up all the elements that Labor would like to see, only talks about those who have served and veterans—people who are no longer serving personnel. We would very much have liked to have seen serving personnel included in this covenant in much the same way they are in similar sorts of legislation in places such as the United Kingdom. By leaving out those who are currently serving, it really is missing a very significant group of people—those who have not yet thought about what it is to have left Defence but who will face the consequences of the decisions we make. So I really want to put on record my disappointment about that.
I also think that what we're missing really crucially is that element of reporting. It is all very well to have a piece of legislation that sets out certain objectives but, unless those objectives are reported on, it is going to be very hard to measure the effectiveness of what we are talking about today. It would not have been difficult to include that in this legislation, and I don't understand why it's not there. The other thing we're very aware of is that it is really important to get this legislation through in the life of this parliament, imperfect as it is. I thank the government for having brought it forward and I'm grateful that we can support it.
Other issues that have come up that fit within it are probably things that my former Defence personnel will be wondering about—just what will this mean in practical terms? I note that it will mean that veterans and their families will have a lapel pin, cards and other paraphernalia that goes with it. But what has come through to me in conversations with veterans is that what they're really looking for is respect and recognition that for a period of their life—sometimes a short period of time and sometimes a longer period of time—their whole world revolved around their work as a member of the Defence Force. And not only did their whole world revolve around it; so did the lives of their families—their parents, their partner or their children. And their focus shifted. From what they tell me, it was not until they left the Defence Force that they realised the impact that it had. I'm sure, Deputy Speaker, you will have your own deep thinking around those aspects.
So one of the things I did recently was meet with my RSL members, my Vietnam Veterans Association members, the families of past-serving personnel, war widows, serving members and families of serving members to have a conversation about other things that are being talked about—not just about the department and how it serves them, not just about the policies we have in place, but a broad and wide-ranging conversation around, in particular, some of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission in its draft report 'A better way to support veterans'. That conversation leads me to feel very strongly that, as we move forward, in turning a covenant into something practical which will play out in the policies we will bring in, we must be very careful about changing the structure that we have.
I'm sure that people will be aware that one of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission was to establish a single ministry for Defence personnel and veterans. But when I spoke to veterans about this they were very much against the idea; it is not something that any of them want to see; the concept of a single ministry was rejected out of hand. I look forward to seeing the government's response and sharing our view that it is not something that should happen. They also don't want to see veterans' affairs politicised. They respect that we in this place work collaboratively on veterans' issues, and they want to see that bipartisanship. As one participant said, 'Veterans are proud that the importance of service is recognised. Australia is one of the only countries with an independent department to serve veterans and widows. The government should be committed to maintaining a standalone department for veterans.' That is just extraordinary to hear, even though in the same breath you hear concerns about some of the treatment that people get from the department. But the very fact that it exists is incredibly important.
Of course, the way the department implements the legislation that they are provided with has raised some concerns. One of the very telling comments during my conversations was that it would be great to know that people who work in that department either themselves had an experience of working in the Defence Force or had at least been exposed to it. I described to them our Defence Force Parliamentary Program and how that exposes those of us who haven't served to just a taste of some of the commitment and the skills development that happens for serving personnel.
I think the Productivity Commission's report was a really useful discussion point on a number of things. One concern was raised around the language used when talking about providing services to veterans, following their service. What concerned people was the phrase 'workers compensation and contemporary social insurance schemes'. There was a real pushback around comparing the services that you provide for veterans—the health services, the employment services, the family services—to an insurance and workers compensation scheme. Veterans felt that this language demonstrated a failure to understand the distinct nature of the Defence Force and the service and sacrifices that are made by personnel and their families.
When we move forward with a covenant, when we use it as a guiding force to implement policy, when we use it to make decisions about how we bring in improved health services, improved mental health services and improved transition services, we need to be very mindful of the language that we use to ensure that it is continuing to differentiate between what people who have never served have gone through and what those who have served have gone through. I think the individual comments certainly indicate that they have concerns that, more recently, people are feeling that when they work with the department, when they go to the Department of Veterans' Affairs to have a matter seen, they have been treated a bit in the manner of an insurance claimant or a workers compensation claimant. I think that is a very wrong approach to have. I would hope that, universally, we would consider that we are providing a service rather than processing a claim.
There is another point that came up during my discussions recently. These discussions were held both in the Blue Mountains and in the Hawkesbury, representing quite a range of people—I had people from the RAAF, from the Navy and from the Army. Their view was that the current system is administratively complex in dealing with veterans' affairs and they would like to see it simplified. But they really valued the guidance and advice of advocates in navigating the system and wanted to see them supported. The Veterans' Affairs case managers, the ones who have built up a wealth of experience, were also highly valued. And, not surprisingly, veterans were adamant that existing services to war windows must be maintained.
I think the most difficult conversations we had were around wellbeing, including mental health. There were certainly concerns about changes to access to physio and other wellbeing and rehabilitation services. But, when it came to mental health and the recommendations from the Productivity Commission, veterans were also unanimous in saying that we need a greater focus on supporting people's mental health. That tied in very closely to transitions and transitioning from the service to civilian life. Any of us who know anything about mental health know that often triggers are when you're changing something. I speak of this as a mother, watching what the triggers are to see signs of a crisis. It is often change, whether that's changing from school to uni or from uni to work. All those things trigger it. So we should know how carefully we need to support people in managing a transition to civilian life.
There is definitely support for the idea of Defence devoting much more attention to this area. However, the concern was about the concept of locating that service entirely within the Department of Defence. That idea was rejected, and it was felt that, in fact, the responsibility for transitioning people needed to be something that sat across both a defence department and a veterans' affairs department. That makes a lot of sense in terms of helping people move from one service to their post-service life as a civilian.
I don't think any of those things are radical or asking too much. The former airmen, Navy personnel, members of the Army, their families, their mums, and the serving personnel who came and shared their ideas with me are asking for something that is very reasonable and something that fits really neatly with this covenant that we are here today supporting. For me, it comes down to respect. It has been such a privilege to experience some of the activities that happen at places like Amberley and on my own bases, Richmond RAAF Base and Glenbrook, and get some insight into the incredible work that's done—the strategy that's thought through, the planning that's done and the exercises that take place—and to know that every one of those people I have spent time with has somebody on the outside who has supported them to be able to do that job of serving Australia.
As I say, I'm very pleased to see that this covenant is in place. I would hope that we can build on this—that this parliament doesn't do something that just has a full stop after it, but that it forms a basis on which we can build not just the services but also the broader community recognition of what happens inside our Defence Force. I think that's our next step. We get to see it. We are so privileged that we get to go inside and see what's involved. But there are millions of people who really don't have a lot of ideas about what happens, and I think there are some opportunities there. I particularly think about the small businesses in my community, who have access to really incredibly trained people but don't necessarily see the opportunities that are there.
I hope, over the next few years, to be able to continue working to build relationships between our civilian community and the many, many RAAF personnel—I have Army as well on my RAAF base at Richmond—and to build those connections so that the real skill, expertise and amazing values that are instilled in our service personnel can be transitioned and translated into the wider civilian world.
I am very pleased to be able to take the opportunity this evening to speak on the Australian Veterans Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. As we've heard in some of the contributions this evening, this bill will create a new act which will provide an important framework for government, business and the community to really recognise and acknowledge the very unique nature of military service and support for veterans and their families.
Importantly, as we've heard, this bill establishes the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. As members in this House would well be aware, Labor announced the establishment of a military covenant in September last year. So this is clearly something that has our support, although I note that Labor's military covenant—and this is an important distinction—would have covered both current and ex-serving personnel and their families, recognising the immense commitment they make to our country and formalising our nation's commitment to look after those that have sacrificed for our nation. Labor is very pleased to see that the government is adopting the covenant via this bill. It is certainly welcome news from our side of the parliament.
I note that there has been some debate around the coverage of this covenant. We would like to expand it. The decision to include both current and ex-serving personnel in the Labor version of the covenant came from the evidence that was brought before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which had an inquiry into this legislation. There were some important observations made by the Labor senators during that inquiry. These comments that I'm about to pass on come from the additional comments of the Labor senators there. It was our wish to acknowledge the importance of families in the lives of both current and ex-serving members. That was a reoccurring theme throughout the submissions that were made to the inquiry. We knew that, when an individual serves in the Australian Defence Force, in many ways the entire family serves with them. We recognise the role that families play in recognising the unique nature of military service and the sacrifices made by those who serve.
I know, as the daughter of a Vietnam veteran, just how true that word is. I, to this day, live with the ramifications of my father serving in the Australian Army. He wasn't a national serviceman; he was a regular Army sergeant. It is very difficult for many of us to get our heads and our hearts around the unique service that ADF personnel provide, but I, like any family member, am acutely aware of the lifelong implications of that service. There are many, many good things to be praised in terms of that service to the country, but, certainly as a family member, my personal experience is that there is often a very high price to pay for that, and the whole family pays for it. In my view and Labor's view, it is absolutely essential that we acknowledge the ongoing support that is required for both current and ex-serving personnel, and indeed all the families that are providing wraparound supports for those men and women for life.
Labor senators, as I said, continued to prosecute the argument of considering the benefits of including current serving members within the covenant. I understand it is the case that the United Kingdom's Armed Force Covenant includes current serving members. It was noted, certainly by the Defence Force Welfare Association, the peak body representing current serving members, that that would be their preference, too. They were one of the only submitters to the inquiry that were able to represent current serving members. We forget that those current members are so often gagged in participating in these debates that have so much of an impact on their lives and conditions both now in the workplace and in the future. It was certainly the current serving members and the chief advocate who articulated a need for this military covenant to apply to the existing members.
Finally, I note that Labor senators noted the comments made by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in relation to reporting, who stated that the minister provides an annual statement regarding the efficacy and benefits of the covenant. But it was Labor senators' and members' view that there would be benefit in considering ways to strengthen this reporting element, including a legislative requirement to report to this parliament rather than an obligation to report through an annual reporting system. I think both of those suggestions have great merit and are very worthy of this House considering and supporting. Certainly, rather than the annual reporting, if we had a form of statement to this parliament, I think it would hold this place to account. It is so easy for our annual reports to slide by and not really be as effective as they might otherwise be. I think governments need to be held to account in terms of their obligations to current and ex-serving personnel and whether they're meeting the standards that we set in this House and in the other place. That level of accountability is absent from this bill, and I'm sad to say I think this bill is much weaker for it.
As I said, Labor has some concerns about the omission of these two elements—the lack of rigorous reporting to the parliament and the exclusion of current serving members. That's why we referred it across to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, to ensure that members of the ex-serving community had an opportunity to be consulted and were comfortable with the provisions in the bill. That being said, Labor is acutely aware that we are on the eve of an election. We are not naive about just how little time this parliament has to deal with this bill now. We do not wish to be holding up the good aspects of this bill by any means. We've got the report from the committee, and we're not in a position to move amendments to this bill without endangering its passage here. But we continue to believe that there is great merit in including current serving members in this bill and in strengthening the legislation by including a reporting-back element to this parliament. They are really two very key and essential things that would lend a lot more gravity to this bill.
In addition to the introduction of the covenant, this bill inserts a general recognition clause which acknowledges the unique nature of military service, the demands that we place on those who serve, the additional support they may require postservice and the Commonwealth's commitment to supporting veterans. Labor wholeheartedly supports this recognition—I wish to be very clear about that—and our ongoing obligation to supporting those who have put their lives on hold in order to serve this country. As an extension of this general recognition, the bill also includes an overarching statement in relation to the beneficial nature of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio legislation.
I would like to pick up on a comment made by my colleague the member for Macquarie earlier on about the rejection from the veterans community around any proposal to smash Defence and Veterans' Affairs into one portfolio. Likewise, the relocation of DVA officers and services is welcome, as long as they're not, again, forced to be merging in with Centrelink or other government services. It's critical that we take the mental health and wellbeing of our service men and women seriously—both current and ex-serving personnel. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on this bill. I lend Labor's support—albeit not as strong as we might like—to the bill and I commend the bill to the House.
I stand here today to fight for and demand Townsville's fair share. After the most devastating floods it appears Townsville has been left to hang out and dry by this LNP budget—not one new cent for Townsville infrastructure for two years. I cannot believe that this government is so out of touch that they have not given Townsville one cent for infrastructure. Clearly, this LNP government has no idea about the importance of infrastructure to the regions. Jobs is the No. 1 issue for Townsville, and this out-of-touch LNP government allocates absolutely nothing to Townsville in the budget—zero—to create new secure jobs for two years. No new money for infrastructure means no jobs for the people of Townsville.
Under the LNP government, unemployment in Townsville has almost doubled. Speaking frankly, every single day I meet at least 20 people and every single person raises the issue of getting a job and how hard it is under this LNP government. They speak about their own issues or those of others that they know, people like Jake. Jake lost his job during this chaotic LNP term. He lost his apprenticeship and he could not find another opportunity, all because of the massive cuts to TAFE. So Jake decided to go to university. With a degree under his belt Jake thought that this would make him more employable and he would finally be able to find a job and support himself and his partner. More than six months on Jake is still looking for employment. Unfortunately for Jake there is no glimmer of hope in this 'no jobs and all cuts' budget. Shame on the LNP.
This government says it is helping the people affected by the floods. Townsville has experienced our worst natural disaster. After more than 22,000 homes were affected, more than 110 roads were damaged and more than 1,000 people in Townsville were left homeless because of the floods, the LNP government delivers zero for natural disaster resilience funding. This government knows how to kick Townsvillians when we are down, and it is simply not good enough. There is no money for hydropower on the Burdekin Falls Dam, no money for The Oasis Townsville veterans' hub, no money to increase naval ship maintenance, no 200 extra Department of Human Services jobs and no money for the Mount Isa to Townsville rail. All Townsville gets from this budget is cut after cut after cut: $8.9 million cut to our Townsville hospital, with 25 nurses jobs gone; $36 million cut to James Cook University, with 14 jobs already cut and more expected to be cut; $38 million cut to Central Queensland University; millions lost to our Townsville public schools; and $171.6 million cut to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and that's in the largest garrison city in the nation.
I will fight against these savage cuts and I will fight for Townsville's fair share. I have fought for my community. Labor has listened and Labor will deliver a much fairer budget for Townsville, a budget that delivers vital infrastructure and hundreds of jobs and that will get Townsville back on its feet after the flood we have just experienced. Labor's budget will deliver $200 million for hydropower on the Burdekin Falls Dam, $4.1 million for The Oasis Townsville, $30 million for 33 extra beds at the Townsville hospital to relieve the waiting list, $23.5 million for Townsville schools over the first three years, 200 new Department of Human Services jobs and an entirely new defence maintenance industry for naval ships. Labor will deliver a fair share for Townsville. Townsville deserves a government that will deliver for all Townsvillians and not just the top end of town. We certainly do not deserve the LNP cuts and chaos. Townsville deserves better and under a Labor government Townsville will get better.
I'm continuously inspired by young people in my community who so often demonstrate such passion and foresight about the future of our nation. I make this observation in response to the hundreds of outstanding entries I received as part of my inaugural North Sydney School Speech Writing Competition. I decided to organise the competition to encourage students to put pen to paper about the issues and values that are important to them. In part, I was inspired by speeches I heard students deliver at the annual presentation day at Cammeray Public School in December. They were just outstanding.
For this, the inaugural competition, students in years 5 and 6 were asked the question: What is special about Australia? Those in years 7 and 8 were asked to outline their designs if they were the Prime Minister for a day. I am pleased to announce that the winners of this year's competition are Sam Street, who is in year 6 at Glenaeon Rudolph Steiner School, and Sharon Jacob from year 7 at North Sydney Girls High School. I hope both are watching this evening on the streaming service.
As part of the competition, I promised to deliver the winning speeches in parliament. On what is special about Australia, Sam Street submitted a beautifully poetic speech which I found quite moving. It reads as follows:
You are taking a quiet stroll along an old Australian track. Sadly, litter dots the area and a plastic bag blows across the path like a dancing jellyfish. You close your eyes and gradually some old unknown magic of the Dreamtime takes you back, back hundreds of years. You stand where you were before, but everything has changed.
You continue to walk along the old track, and many incredible things unfold before your eyes. The wind rustles the leaves above you, and you notice a furry koala sitting between the branches of a strong eucalyptus tree. You hear leaves crunching as a large golden snake slithers past. Your eyes are drawn to a flock of beautiful birds that dip and sway in the deep blue sky high above.
Then your foot hits a hard object. You spin around to see what it was, and to your astonishment it is the broken head of a wooden spear. Your heart misses a beat as a mob of kangaroos speeds past you, followed by an enthusiastic Aboriginal hunter.
Everything begins to fade, and you see the plastic bag float by again, bringing you back to reality. Suddenly you realise how special Australia is and how much you want to keep it that way. You reach out and catch the bag.
On being the Prime Minister for a day, Sharon Jacob wrote:
I'd do quite a few things to change the way we Australians live. First of all, I would give everyone an excellent education. I would also give more money for research. Another action I would take is more funding towards medical studies, especially for finding cures for fatal diseases such as cancer.
Everyone needs to be educated well. So, if I were PM for a day, I would officially declare that everyone in Australia, regardless of their age, gender, race, religion or appearance, can receive a free and exceptional education, until they are in university, because children are the pillars of Australia's future. If everyone in Australia is well educated, we can all work together more efficiently, and we can create and discover much more. We can all live better, happier lives.
We can't really deny the fact that we're pretty far behind in space exploration and AI, compared to other countries. So, if I were the PM, I'd give more money to Australian space exploration and artificial intelligence organisations. This would help them do more research and create world-first inventions, and explore the universe deeper. Imagine if robots and advanced machinery could be found in every household and building in Australia! What if Australia could have a settlement on the moon, or even Mars?
Every year, almost 50,000 people in Australia die from cancer. But cancer is not the only deadly disease. If I could be PM for a day, I'd raise more funds for medical research in Australia, so that we could save more lives and help people who are victims of diseases, regardless of whether the disease is serious or not.
I hope that one day, I can become the Prime Minister of Australia, so that I can improve the lifestyle and future of all Australians, by giving everyone an exceptional education, and giving more money for space exploration, AI and medical research. I hope that the current Prime Minister will help to achieve this dream of mine—this dream of Australia's.
I can definitely see a future Prime Minister in the making. Congratulations to both Sam and Sharon for their marvellous contributions.
I also want to acknowledge everyone else who entered the competition, because the standard was so exceptionally high. Having held this inaugural competition, I am pleased to indicate that it will become a permanent feature if I am re-elected to this place in the next term of parliament.
For over a century, Australians have understood that we have a social compact. It's a deal made between the people and the government. It goes like this. Australians work, and they work hard. They're productive and help companies make a profit. They and the companies pay tax. In return, companies expect things like political stability, a fair playing field and commercial infrastructure. Workers expect a living wage and they expect the government to provide social services, like schools, universities, kindergarten, child care and hospitals, and a social safety net, including things like Medicare, parental leave and the NDIS. They expect protection and correctional services, courts of law and important infrastructure.
But, right now, Australians know that the social compact has been broken by six years of Liberal governments. No-one can forget the complete rejection of the 2014 horror budget, parts of which we are still paying for today. Remember the 'bust the budget' rallies, where the outcry was loud and clear. Remember the photos of the Treasurer dancing and smoking a cigar, celebrating one of the most hurtful and contemptuous budgets in our history. Those photos prove that the other side don't believe in the social compact. They don't believe in society. They hate the whole concept of a social wage and the important social safety net. This government believe that, if you are sick, you can pay for health care yourself; if you are poor, it's your fault and you're on your own; if you find yourself without a job, bad luck; if you need skills or an education, pay for it; if you are old and need care, buy it or languish on waiting lists; if you are young and need help with a job or an apprenticeship, tough luck; and, if you work hard and need a living wage, bad luck, because we now know that they keep wages down on purpose.
But the story is different if you are rich. Then, oh, then, they care. They make sure that the social compact doesn't apply to the wealthy. They protect them from having to pay taxes. They constantly skew the economy to protect the big banks and large corporations. They allow loopholes, minimising their responsibility. They allow them to treat their workers so poorly and don't care when workers are thrown off EBAs or are forced onto casual contracts or rosters or are forced into insecure work or are asked to choose between pay cuts or losing their jobs. This budget is no different. They are trying desperately to win votes with tax cuts, which Labor will actually better, but have they tackled any of the big social compact issues that actually make life better for the majority of Australians and that they expect and deserve? No. Workers in this country will not stand for that. They want to change the rules to put this country back on track.
In my electorate, a number of workers were on strike for nearly 20 days. They were employees of Chemist Warehouse. They had legitimate issues with poor pay and worker harassment problems, including sexual harassment. They were casualised to the point where they relied on getting a text message the night before to let them know if they had a shift the next day. I kid you not. Nobody can live a decent life with a job like that. It epitomises the state of the economy that this government has created: keep wages down, keep workers insecure, keep jobs unstable, keep people so anxious and worried that it's too hard to speak up or fight back. Well, I'm proud say that the workers at Chemist Warehouse organised. Through their union, the NUW, they stood up to the horrible tactics of that company that was trying to break the spirit of the striking workers. They stuck to their guns and they won. It was a great outcome—more secure work, better pay and better conditions—but only after a big fight. I congratulate them.
But, sadly, many people aren't organised into a union. Many people don't have the power to stand up to employers. Many workers cannot simply ask the boss for a pay rise or better conditions. If they do, they may not get that text, they won't get that next contract or they may never get another pay packet from that employer. This is a huge part of why wages aren't growing and why the country needs a pay rise. Everybody, it seems, other than the government, knows this. Years of economic growth and low unemployment is the mantra of this government, but this has been good for the few and not the many. It does not gel with the reality that workers face. Wishing pay rises on a budget paper doesn't make them happen. We need to face up to the realities of working people. Not only will Labor deliver tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners; we will deliver a wages policy. We will change the rules around casualisation, stop sham contracting, deal with dodgy labour hire firms and stop companies trashing EBAs. We'll fix wage theft and the way the minimum wage is decided so that people have a living wage, and we will reverse penalty rates cuts. Only then will we deliver the social services that our workers deserve.
I rise tonight to pay my respects to a dear friend who sadly passed away recently. Neville Jamil Newman was born on 18 May 1945 at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. Prior to Neville's birth, his parents were part of the compulsory evacuation south to Cairns, Townsville and Brisbane during World War II on the SS Ormiston. For a short time, Neville and his family lived in the inner-city Brisbane suburb of Kelvin Grove before they moved back to Thursday Island in 1948. There Neville and his siblings grew up in what was then known as Malay Town, now known as Victoria Parade, where he attended the Thursday Island state school and the island's Catholic school.
As a teen, Neville enjoyed hunting and fishing with his mates and boxing, a love he shared with his late father, Val Newman. Neville was enlisted into national service in 1965 and was ready to be deployed to Vietnam but unfortunately fell severely ill and had to be hospitalised, meaning that he couldn't travel with the troops. When Neville left the Army, he and his best mate, Joey Yamashita, were quite a hit at Thursday Island's Grand Hotel, where their two-piece band performed every Friday night. The duo were well known across the region for their performances.
It was at the Grand Hotel where Neville met his first wife, Mesela Blanket. The couple eventually married in 1968 before leaving Thursday Island in 1970 to move with their family to Bamaga. However, it was not all smooth sailing. In the early 1970s, Neville and his mate John Adidi took a dinghy out to sea where they were involved in a very serious boating accident. Both men were lost at sea more for about 33 hours. They were eventually rescued and transferred to Cairns Hospital in a critical condition. Both recovered, fortunately, and remained lifelong friends.
Neville was widely known for his cooking, particularly his 'secret' Asian and sambal dishes. He ensured that all his kids learnt how to cook from an early age, a passion many of them still share today. In 1987, Neville met his second wife, Lency Stephen, who eventually moved to Bamaga to live with him. In fact, I had the absolute privilege of being invited to and attending their wedding at Bamaga. In 2006, the couple moved to Cairns due to Lency's health condition. Lency had diabetes. They had to go to Cairns to get her treatment. It was in Cairns that Neville became a very passionate dialysis advocate. Neville saw firsthand the effects living away from home had on people being forced to travel to and live in the big smoke for treatment. He worked tirelessly, banging on my door almost every second day, to reopen the Bamaga renal unit. Through his advocacy and tireless work, a dialysis treatment service was re-established at Bamaga, where it still exists today.
After a decade of living in Cairns, Neville returned home to Bamaga to be closer to his family and to live out his years. Neville was an absolute man of honour. He was a very humble man. He had a radiant smile, and he certainly was a dear friend. Over the many times that we caught up, he felt that one of his greatest achievements was the fact that he was one of the first Torres Strait Islanders to be called up for national service. He took a great amount of pride in the fact that he actually served his country. He always had with him a very large photograph of himself and a friend of his where they were waiting to be taken off to national service. He had all his kit with him and everything ready. He was a very, very young Neville Newman at that stage but one who was full of anticipation and very excited that he was going off to do something very, very special.
Neville left us, sadly, on 30 January this year. I had the absolute privilege of travelling to Bamaga to be there with his family and to share and celebrate a life that was exceptionally well lived. Neville is survived by his 10 children, 47 grandchildren and 33 great-grandchildren. So, while he will be forever very sadly missed, I can assure you: he will never ever be forgotten. I say: rest in peace, mate.
I might take this opportunity to express my best wishes to all of those people who work at the parliament who are retiring at the end of this term. I know of course, Mr Speaker, you will have done so in private, as well. I'm sure you've also expressed your public regard for those people who are leaving us at the end of this term.
I rise to speak about last night's federal budget. I regret to tell you that it is yet another federal budget from the coalition government that fails to fund Cross River Rail. This project has been a project of national significance now for many, many years. It is crying out for federal funding. It is an absolute shame that the government has failed to provide a federal contribution to Cross River Rail. We need this project in the south-east corner to help bust traffic congestion, to help improve public transport and to help people get to work. The federal government should have funded Cross River Rail. If Labor wins the election, we will fund Cross River Rail.
I also want to make some remarks about other traffic congestion issues in my electorate of Griffith, on the south side of Brisbane. Everyone on the south side knows the importance of removing the Cavendish Road level crossing at Coorparoo, but the government has failed to provide any funding to remove it. It is not just me who knows this is an important project. The LNP-led council recognised the importance of it in the 2014 city plan and, as you are probably aware, the South East Queensland Council of Mayors identified it as a priority in 2016, and as recently as this year, the Council of Mayors, in their 2019 mass people movement study, again identified this as a really important project for our area.
The government should be putting federal money into removing the level crossing at Cavendish Road in Coorparoo. It is not good enough that people in Coorparoo, in Camp Hill, in Carina and in Carina Heights, and all the suburbs around that area—not just in my electorate, but beyond into Bonner and into Bowman—have to put up with this major traffic snarl when they are just trying to get the kids to school or trying to get into the city to go to work of a morning. This issue must be fixed. I have been talking about this issue for the entire time I have been elected. I want this government to make a contribution to the removal of the Coorparoo Cavendish Road level crossing. If they won't, then they should be looking at what they can do to partner with other levels of government to get a contribution for this, because my locals are sick and tired of this Coorparoo level crossing. It is one of the highest volume level crossings in the state of Queensland—it is in the top two—in terms of traffic that goes through the level crossing. It causes major congestion, particularly in the morning peak. This government needs to put its money where its mouth is. You talk about congestion-busting infrastructure. Well, where is the money for the removal of the level crossing at Coorparoo?
I also want to raise with the House some concerns I have about some other policy issues. Unfortunately, last night's federal budget baked in the Liberal-National government's cuts to public school funding. It is a $14 billion funding cut that the Liberal-National government has imposed on public schools. It will take a Labor government to fix school funding. In my electorate alone, the cuts mean $16.43 million for public schools in Griffith over three years. We will restore that funding if we are elected at the next election. A future Shorten Labor government, if elected, will make sure, through the Fair Go For Schools program, that those funding cuts—$16.43 million for public schools in Griffith over three years—are restored. Our local schools deserve the best possible funding outcome, because they deserve needs based funding. The kids who go to those schools deserve to get a world-class education. No matter what school you go to on the south side, you deserve to get an excellent education, and Labor will make sure that we restore the funding that's been cut from education by the Liberals and Nationals.
We'll also restore penalty rates. We have repeatedly sought to get this House to vote to restore the penalty rates that have been cut, but the sad fact is the coalition government supports the cuts to penalty rates. There are 13,214 retail and hospitality workers in Griffith who have had their Sunday penalty rates cut under the LNP. By employment, retail is the fifth-biggest industry in my electorate—6,568 workers—and hospitality is the fourth biggest, at 6,646. Those working Australians rely on their penalty rates to put food on the table and to pay the rent. They can't trust the Liberals to restore them. Labor will restore the penalty rates.
For the first time in 12 years, after more than a decade of deficits, the budget is returning to surplus. We're back in the black. Our country is, once again, living within its means. This budget surplus has come about only because our government has remained committed to our economic plan to restore the nation's finances and fix the problems Labor left behind. Importantly, we're returning to surplus and reducing debt not through higher taxes but through good budget management and by sustaining growth. Returning the budget to surplus is an important economic milestone. Of course, it goes to confidence and business sentiment and it sustains our AAA credit rating, amongst other tangible benefits, yet a surplus is not just an end in and of itself. At the end of the day, a strong budget and a strong economy is what our communities and our constituents need to deliver on their needs and aspirations.
One reason it's important to put the nation's finances on a more sustainable footing is to reduce the burden on future generations. Yesterday marked the beginning of the end of the intergenerational theft that Labor's debt has imposed on our future generations. A budget surplus enables us to guarantee the essential services that Australians need and rely on. And a budget surplus means more invested in infrastructure, in our healthcare system, in training, in education and in our environment and less wasted on paying interest.
This budget strongly backs small and medium-sized businesses by lowering their taxes, allowing them to reinvest in their businesses, employ more workers and grow. The small businesses in Brisbane, which I support and love so dearly, rely on good economic policy because they are delivering the opportunities and the prosperity we all want to see for the future. Put simply, stronger small businesses mean more local jobs and better paid jobs. There are now over 36,000 small and medium businesses in Brisbane. I am so proud that there are 3,000 more small businesses in Brisbane than when I was elected three years ago. It's no coincidence that, at the same time as all of that growth in our small-business sector, Brisbane's unemployment rate is now estimated to be as low as 4.2 per cent, down from almost six per cent when our government took office. That's why I'm so proud that this budget continues our strong support for small business. It brings forward their 25 per cent tax rate and increases their access to finance with a new $2 billion fund, and it increases and extends the instant asset write-off, which I know is being used successfully by so many of our local small businesses around Brisbane to grow and to take their businesses to the next level.
The budget is also providing additional income tax relief to over 88,000 hardworking Brisbane residents. The budget delivers immediate tax relief of up to $1,080 for low- and middle-income earners and up to $2,160 for a dual-income couple. Over 33,000 locals around Brisbane will receive the full tax offset of $1,080 in their next tax return in about 13 weeks time. This tax relief is a dividend from strong economic management, and it will help ease the cost-of-living pressures faced by Brisbane households.
There's a stark contrast developing here on tax policy, because the alternative is $200 billion of tax increases from the Labor Party. A Shorten Labor government means new and higher taxes on retirees, housing, income, investments, trusts, family businesses and energy. In Brisbane, over 7,000 local residents would be hit by Labor's proposed retiree tax. More than 11,000 Brisbane residents invest in a rental house or flat using negative gearing, which Labor would abolish. On top of that, every house owner will have the value of their biggest investment hit, and every renter in Brisbane is predicted to see their rents rise by up to 22 per cent.
Our government has restored the nation's finances, strengthened our economy and guaranteed essential services without increasing taxes. There is record funding for schools, hospitals, aged care, medical research and the environment without an increase in taxes. There are more life-saving medicines on the PBS, as well as record funding for youth mental health, record funding to fight the scourge of ice, record funding for the Great Barrier Reef and more funding to reduce emissions.
After six years of cuts and chaos, the Liberal-National Party government continues to neglect Australian's migrant and multicultural communities, and the budget has delivered a con job to those people hoping to contribute to our society and call Australia home. There's nothing in the budget to improve visa processing times, and the Liberals and Nationals still want to privatise Australia's visa processing system, putting at risk 3,000 Australian jobs, putting at risk our national security and putting at risk the privacy of people. Longer visa processing times mean that people are waiting longer to be reunited with family members. People are putting their lives on hold until they can finally settle in Australia. Processing times for partner visas are now at a record 28 months, and there are nearly 200,000 people on bridging visas waiting to have their applications processed. In addition to that, an incredible 81,000 asylum seekers have arrived by plane since 1 July 2014 under the Liberals and Nationals, including the time when the current Prime Minister was immigration minister. This is not good enough.
House adjourned at 20:00
I want to take the opportunity today to talk about a very important issue in my local area. Yesterday, as many of my colleagues would know, was World Autism Awareness Day. It's a day when, normally, I'm able to be in the electorate and participate in some really important activities to show how our community value the people with autism in our community, including making sure they get the support, education and opportunities that they are entitled to, and to extend that appreciation and support to their families. There's a great program in which we light up the lighthouse on the headland in Wollongong in blue. That certainly happened, and I extend my congratulations to everybody involved in that project. It's a great visual reminder of the importance of people with autism.
On the weekend, I joined my state colleagues, Paul Scully and Ryan Park, at a 'liftathon'. This involved a fabulous local fellow who wanted to support the Aspect autism school in our area. He was actually lifting weights and he did it for nearly the whole day, up to, I think, 1,000 kilograms in total in short rounds. It was impressive to watch. I was very pleased, to be honest, that my role, along with my state colleagues' role, was to make a donation! Some of the trainers there were trying to talk me into doing weightlifting. But his effort on behalf of the school was really impressive and he raised over $5,000 for the school, which was a great outcome. It's a tremendous school. I'm sure many colleagues have Aspect autism schools in their area and know what great work they do. So congratulations to Andrew Webb on his weightlifting effort.
I also really want to acknowledge the Woonona Shamrocks rugby team, who were there with a sausage sizzle also raising money for the cause. These were some really great outcomes.
Finally, I also want to acknowledge that yesterday I would have been at the Corrimal Chamber of Commerce's launch of their program to make Corrimal an autism-friendly town. There are some great businesses coming on board under the great leadership of Paul Boultwood and the Corrimal Chamber of Commerce. They are looking at programs and initiatives to make Corrimal as a town and particularly the shops and businesses in the business centre an autism-friendly space. And so there are some wonderful local initiatives that are really important for World Autism Awareness Day, which was yesterday. I just want to extend the fact that I would have been there to support them, but I support them in this place.
Today I rise to speak of great news for the electorate of Bonner. As thousands of my constituents on the Bayside would know, I've been fighting to fix the Lindum low-level crossing since 2017. There's not a week that goes by that I'm not speaking to people at the Manly markets down Edith Street in Wynnum or visiting Lindum and witnessing the horrors of this intersection firsthand. I've collected more than 7,000 signatures to fix Lindum. I've hosted many ministers, senators and local people at the intersection to call for a fix, and I've been working hard with the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population, the Hon. Alan Tudge, to secure funding to fix this crossing. Thanks to the Morrison government's strong economic management, the community's full support and my strong advocacy, we've done it. I'm pleased to announce the federal government will contribute $85 million to fix Lindum crossing in Wynnum West.
In addition to this, newly elected Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner has confirmed that the Brisbane City Council will also put forward $40 million for the project. The only level of government that hasn't committed funding now is the Queensland state Labor government. I've spoken to many constituents about this local traffic hazard. I've door-knocked businesses, who've told me about the horrors that they see daily as motorists rush through this intersection on their way to work or taking their children to school. Locals who live in Wynnum West dread leaving their driveways, and others just avoid it. But none of the stories have been as harrowing as the recent death of an elderly woman that occurred there and the toll that it took on the local students, passengers, train driver and commuters who witnessed this tragedy.
Father Michael Twigg of Iona College has personally thanked me for delivering this funding, and he said that fixing Lindum will have a huge impact on the school community and the 1,600-plus students and their families. If the state Labor government won't listen to my pleas to fix the issue then I ask them to listen to the local community, who are sick of having to take their lives in their own hands as they cross this intersection. Once again I thank the community who have rallied behind me on this issue. We've delivered this win together. Now let's fix Lindum.
I rise to present petition EN0849 to the House. It has been considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions and found to be in order. In commemoration of Purple Day, an awareness day for epilepsy held each year on 26 March, I am privileged to present this petition to support those Australians living with epilepsy. I particularly want to thank a champion constituent—Renee Evans, who lives in Cowan—who brought this petition together but is also such a passionate advocate for people with epilepsy. She herself has lived with epilepsy. She knows what it's like to live with epilepsy. She knows the stigma that people with epilepsy face every day. She is extremely committed to supporting people with epilepsy and raising awareness about epilepsy not just in Cowan but around Australia, and she has worked tirelessly in collecting 528 signatures for this petition.
The petition asks for more funding for people with epilepsy in Western Australia and around Australia for things like support groups, help getting jobs, assistance with medication costs and dietary needs, transportation and, most importantly, raising awareness for people with epilepsy. It also makes the point that current associations that are there to provide services for epilepsy should also incorporate the views of epileptics and carers of people with epilepsy who have the condition themselves in order to fully respond to the needs of people living with epilepsy.
Epilepsy is an overarching term for a group of neurological disorders, some with known causes and some without. But they all manifest in some form of seizure. I've heard stories of babies in the womb having seizures, from epilepsy, right through to people of all ages suffering from these seizures. I myself have a niece—or a niece-in-law, I guess—who suffers from epilepsy. She had her first seizure as a teenager, waiting at the bus stop after school.
Three to four per cent of Australians will develop epilepsy at some point in their lives. It's very clear that Australians with epilepsy need the support of their government, because many of the people who live with epilepsy can be free of seizures with the appropriate treatment. Further support for epilepsy is exactly what the signatories of this petition are calling for. I am very pleased to present this petition. Accordingly, I table the petition and thank the House.
The petition read as follows—
This budget is fantastic news for my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast because, for the first time in more than a decade, we are back in the black. The budget is back in surplus. After more than a decade of deficits, this budget forecasts, as surplus, $7.1 billion in 2019-20. That's a $55.5 billion turnaround. This is important for people in my electorate of Robertson and for people right across the Central Coast, because it means we can pay for the projects we need to see our region continue to grow.
The budget backs our Central Coast commuters with $35 million for fully funded and properly costed commuter car parking at Gosford and Woy Woy. This investment will build 600 new car parks. It was always our idea for our hardworking commuters in Gosford, and it will provide an additional 140 spaces in Woy Woy—fully costed, fully funded and backed by a petition of close to two years in the making. Our commuters leave early each morning and arrive home late, and this budget is making sure they can spend more time with family and less time trying to find a park at the station.
The budget is investing in the world-class community and sporting infrastructure we need, with $8.25 million to upgrade the Peninsula Recreation Precinct. This is a fantastic project that is investing in quality youth and sporting infrastructure on the peninsula. Because of the choices that our government has made, because of our plan for a stronger economy, we are also able to upgrade the amenity block at Rodgers Park in Woy Woy with $800,000. This is a project that the Southern Spirit Cricket Club, the Peninsula Swans AFL, the Woy Woy Junior Rugby League Football Club and Peninsula Touch have been crying out for for too long.
It means we can invest in smaller but equally important projects to my community, like upgrading the play equipment at Pinyari Park in Kincumber. This is a project that means so much to families who live around the park. I want to pay special tribute to 11-year-old Nina, who brought this matter to my attention and helped me start a community petition. It means that Woy Woy Oval can finally get the scoreboard they need to complete the redevelopment of this important facility.
The budget also invests in health care on the Central Coast, including funding of $3.8 million for a new linear accelerator machine for the cancer centre in Gosford, making sure that local people who are undergoing radiotherapy treatment for cancer can get the very best care without going on a waiting list or having to travel. We've invested in a pilot program called Health on the Streets, run by Central Coast Primary Care, and that's not all. We're delivering further tax relief for hardworking Australians. We're backing the 18,000 small businesses on the Central Coast by increasing the instant asset write-off to $30,000. There's record funding for local schools and record health spending, including for the Central Coast, where our bulk-billing rate is already at a record high of 87 per cent. This is all possible because of our plan to build an even stronger economy— (Time expired)
Well, it was pleasing to hear yesterday that Mayo roads were in the budget; however, I am concerned about the time frames, particularly for Victor Harbor Road. Sadly, Mayo roads are over-represented in major crashes and fatalities. We are heartbroken when we lose another member of our community, and, sadly, we lose far too many on our regional roads, so I do welcome the government's commitment for $550 million for the Black Spot Program for roads. This is essential money, but the question is whether it is enough funding. But certainly it is essential money, and I will be strongly advocating for a good percentage of those funds to be going into Mayo and, indeed, into South Australia.
With regard to the Main South Road to Victor Harbor Road upgrade at McLaren Vale, while it is pleasing to see that in the budget there is $73 million put to one side, I am concerned about where that funding sits within the forward estimates. Any local in Mayo knows that that's actually not the area of the road that we need the funding for. We need the funding to go all the way down to Victor Harbor. We need the duplication of Victor Harbor Road. The challenges for us start between Mount Compass and Victor Harbor. Very few locals talk to me about the challenges between McLaren Vale and the Main South Road intersection—it's more the other end of Victor Harbor. So I will be continuing my fight for as long as I'm in this place to make sure that we get funding for the duplication of Victor Harbor Road. Some overtaking lanes in the first instance would be a very good start. The RAA say this needs to be done, that a $600 million investment is needed, and I will continue to fight for that.
I am pleased to see supplementary road funding continuing for South Australia. This helps our regional councils. This recognises that South Australia has 11 per cent of the nation's local roads, but receives less than five per cent of the funding. This is the continuation of the supplementary road funding, and this is what NXT, now Centre Alliance, negotiated for in very difficult circumstances, very challenging circumstances, with the government a couple of years ago. This funding was due to run out this June. My councils were so concerned about how they were going to fund their roads, so I'm very pleased to see that that $40 million is there and will continue to be funded for another two years.
South Australia's road network is in a state of disrepair across much of South Australia, and so we will be looking to the next federal government—no matter who is in government—and I will be saying to them: 'You need to make sure that you invest properly in South Australia's roads. Our lives depend on it.'
Mark and Gayle Forbes are an inspiration to anyone who is fortunate enough to know them. Rather than let their family's experience with eating disorders dictate their futures, Mark and his family took it upon themselves to help other families living with the same challenges. They had a vision: to build Australia's first residential specialist treatment facility for eating disorders, a comfortable homelike environment set on a beautiful rural property where sufferers could recover and grow. Unwilling to wait for the project's funding to come together, Mark bought the block of land that endED Butterfly House will occupy with a generous donation from Roy and Nola Thompson. Since then he has gathered pledges of support from 36 local businesses, who have promised to donate or provide free goods and services for the build.
But for all their hard work and dedication, Mark and Gayle cannot do this alone. That's why I was proud and overjoyed to be able to tell Mark yesterday morning that the Liberal-National government is providing endED Butterfly House with $4.5 million in the 2019-20 federal budget. This is in addition to the $1.5 million I announced to support the house's construction last year and the $180,000 I announced weeks ago to support their passionate recovery coaches, Millie Thomas and Laura Chamberlain. A small portion of this funding will make up the remaining shortfall needed for the house's construction. The bulk, however, will go towards Commonwealth support for specialist residential care for public patients at the facility over the next four years. It will ensure that best practice in-patient treatment is available on the Sunshine Coast for the most vulnerable people who could not otherwise afford it.
This funding is part of the Liberal-National government's $70.2 million program to establish six residential eating disorder centres across Australia, no doubt inspired by Mark's example and the national leadership that endED and the Butterfly Foundation are providing. The Minister for Health has shown great dedication to helping people living with an eating disorder and helping their families, and, in particular, he's done a huge amount to support endED. The minister should be congratulated for his focus on the deadly conditions. I'm grateful to him for being so available to Mark and I, and so receptive to our advocacy for endED Butterfly House. As we celebrate this lifesaving funding, we should remember that it is only through a strong economy that we're able to deliver it. The Liberal-National government can afford to make this difference for people who are suffering because we are securing a strong economy which can pay for the services that we need.
I rise to raise two issues of great concern to my local community in the inner west of Sydney. One concerns Globe Wilkins, one of our nation's finest preschools. Operated by the Inner West Council, it has received the Australian Children's Education & Care Quality Authority's excellence rating—the highest rating you can get. Indeed, it is the only preschool in Sydney to have received this high rating more than once.
The preschool's been based at Wilkins Public School for 20 years. It got moved as a result of its previous location being directly under the flight path of the third runway at Kingsford Smith Airport. So the federal government does have some responsibility, in my view, for the ongoing existence of this preschool. Indeed, the problem now arises that the state Liberal government have said that they will push ahead with a tender for the preschool, meaning that we might see a private operator operating a private preschool on public land and the closure of Globe Wilkins altogether. The next Labor government, I'm pleased to announce, will guarantee access to preschool for all three- and four-year-old Australian kids, and we'll also invest a million dollars to help deliver new classrooms at Globe Wilkins Preschool in Marrickville.
The second issue concerns Marrickville Golf Course, a golf course operated by the Inner West Council. Known as Royal Marrickville in the inner west of Sydney, it's a very small golf course but one that is the centre of community activity. It's an 18-hole golf course with a clubhouse. It's where people have birthdays, where people have activities, where people walk their dogs and where people engage in open space, which is so limited in the inner west of Sydney.
It's a community institution that's operated since the 1940s, but the Greens political party on Marrickville council want to chop it down to nine holes; they think that's enough. They regard golf as an elite sport. What they should do is get out of their ivory tower, go down there and talk to the working-class men and women who have been playing golf for decades at that golf course. It is affordable, it is small—it's only par 62—and it is vital open space on the banks of the Cooks River in my electorate. The fact is that cutting the golf course in half would destroy this community facility that people have enjoyed for generations. We will fight, and this Sunday there's a rally at one o'clock to save Marrickville Golf Course. I'll be there, and I call upon the community to join me in defending this facility.
If I were in Sydney on the weekend, I'd be there too, to support the Marrickville Golf Club.
Maintaining our vast road network across Australia has always been important to the Morrison government. In O'Connor in the last few weeks we've kicked a lot of goals on that front. In Albany we announced $140 million for the construction of the ring-road. I'm so proud to be able to deliver the most important project for Albany since I was elected in 2013. The ring-road will change the way we move around our region and it will benefit the entire community by making our roads safer. It will ease congestion on local roads by diverting traffic away from Mount Lockyer Primary School, Albany's largest primary school, and it will cut five minutes off the Albany-Denmark commute.
I've worked hard in Canberra to secure a commitment from my government for this vital project. I'm pleased that hard work has paid off and that I've secured the $140 million needed to ensure this $175 million project goes ahead. This funding has been set aside in the federal budget, and the project now hinges on the state government submitting the business case to Infrastructure Australia. Unfortunately, the state government have been dragging their feet, and I'm calling on them to pick up the pace and just complete the paperwork. I've put in the work to secure this massive funding commitment for Albany. Now it's up to the state minister, Rita Saffioti, to finish the job.
The investment in roads by the Morrison government is about getting on with delivering the critical infrastructure regional Australia needs. We'll invest $70 million in the Wheatbelt secondary freight network under our Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. Grain production is the lifeblood of the Wheatbelt communities and it's critically important for people in those communities that the government invest in a safer, more efficient road network. The strategic upgrades will target the freight network of more than 4,000 kilometres of roads that connect with state and national highways. I've worked closely with local governments in the Wheatbelt to secure funding for this important road network. Last year in Canberra, I hosted a delegation from the Wheatbelt shires, led by Brookton Shire President Katrina Crute, and I was able to facilitate meetings with key ministers to pitch that proposal.
We've also announced the latest allocation of $76.5 million for the Outback Way, Australia's longest shortcut, taking our total commitment for that project to more than $160 million. On completion, the Outback Way will comprise 2,500 kilometres of sealed road, linking Laverton in the northern Goldfields to Winton in western Queensland. This investment will reduce travel times and cut freight costs for our mining, agriculture and tourism industries and will significantly improve safety.
Nationally, we've allocated an additional $1.1 billion to the Roads to Recovery Program and another $550 million for the Black Spot Program. We've extended the Bridges Renewal Program and allocated $275 million to improve the safety of heavy vehicle operations. I'm proud that our government is investing in major road infrastructure— (Time expired)
Our planet is increasingly being harmed by human activity, which is directly contributing to: climate change; earth, air and ocean pollution; overuse and depletion of natural resources; the loss of natural habitat; and the extinction of flora and fauna. Scientists estimate that 150 to 200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. About seven million people die from air pollution each year, and air pollution in some parts of the world has reached crisis levels. Over one million seabirds and 100,000 sea mammals are killed by ocean pollution each year. Deforestation is causing animal extinction while adding to air and soil pollution levels. Yet, in the face of mounting scientific evidence, visible environmental catastrophes and more frequent extreme weather events, mankind is not doing anywhere near enough to prevent the destructive trajectory that our planet is on.
The quotation 'Nero fiddles while Rome burns' well describes the widespread indifference to the global environmental demise being caused. Claims that climate change is not real and that we're experiencing normal weather cycles or that the environment is resilient and will recover are pathetic responses by those in denial or by those who put profits before responsibility. Sadly, it will be future generations who will pay dearly for today's mismanagement. Already in Australia we are seeing and paying for the negative health effects of environmental degradation; the devastating impact on farmers of extreme weather events, soil pollution and water shortages; the depletion of fishing stocks; and the loss of species that serve an ecological purpose. Our national icon the Great Barrier Reef is likely to be almost completely wiped out if global warming reaches two degrees Celsius.
So of course I strongly back Labor's announcement that, if elected, Labor will create a national container deposit scheme; establish a national waste commissioner; invest $60 million in a national recycling fund; work with neighbouring countries to clean up the Pacific Ocean; invest $200 million in the urban rivers and corridors program to clean up our urban waterways and stop plastics from reaching the oceans; set a national electric vehicle target of 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030; and work with businesses and households to bring down pollution. Those commitments are in addition to a suite of measures that Labor has already announced, including an emissions reduction target of 45 per cent and a Renewable Energy Target of 50 per cent by 2030.
With climate change policy, international unity and commitment is needed to protect the planet. Every country shares responsibility for what is happening to our world. The longer the issues are ignored, the greater will be the consequences and the more difficult will become our ability to repair the damage.
Before I call the next speaker, I put to the chamber that, if no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes.
This budget, which has finally brought the budget back into black and started to repair the damage of Labor's debt and deficit legacy, has direct benefits for the people of Goldstein. We're particularly happy with what has been delivered in the health budget and the transport and infrastructure budget and, of course, with what's been delivered in essential services and sports infrastructure.
The Bayside area has never had a Medicare-eligible MRI licence until now. Under the Morrison government, Cabrini Brighton can now offer life-saving scans for those who need vital diagnostic services. Cabrini Brighton is a critical part of our social infrastructure, and our record spending on health speaks volumes. From 2013 to 2020, hospital funding has increased by 76 per cent. That's social dividend No. 1.
Social dividend No. 2 is our success in funding local infrastructure upgrades to help build stronger communities. The Morrison government is contributing $4.7 million to the new indoor netball facility in Sandringham for the over 3,000 netball players in Bayside. That will mean no more forced byes or shorter games and training sessions. Young women and men in our community deserve the types of facilities that the Morrison government are able to deliver through our prudent, responsible economic management, and we are delivering. Thank you to Shane Peters, the President of the Sandringham and District Netball Association. Thank you to Chris Pearce for his help and to Lisa Alexander, the coach of the Australian Diamonds, for working with us to deliver this critical bit of infrastructure.
Ormond's EE Gunn Reserve has received over $200,000 for lighting upgrades, which will boost sporting opportunities in our community. Another social dividend in our economic plan is the delivery of car parking at Bentleigh and Hampton stations. Liveability is one of the critical issues around Goldstein because we have so many people who want to live in our blessed community. That means we need to invest to make sure that we can maintain our liveability standards so that Goldstein continues to be the residential retreat that we love. This government will deliver $4 million to boost parking at Bentleigh station. That means no more missing out on car parks if you don't get there before 7.30 in the morning. It means more transport options—making sure people have choice—and lower pollution. The same will occur at Hampton station, where there'll be 133 new car parks for commuters.
These are huge wins for our community and show that the Morrison government understands the challenges our community faces. We understand that the way to solve these problems is strong economic management to deliver the social and human dividends so that our community can continue to grow and prosper.
I rise to confirm the commitments of a Shorten federal Labor government to my electorate of Solomon. A Shorten federal Labor government will deliver for Darwin and Palmerston. Already we've seen a $14 million commitment to public schools in my electorate, which is going to be fantastic for every primary and high school student. The schools really need that extra funding, and I am very proud that federal Labor has committed that funding to schools—to the kids and families of the Northern Territory.
A Shorten Labor government will invest $220 million in infrastructure and community development projects to dramatically improve the infrastructure in Kakadu National Park, to make sure that it continues to be a prime tourist destination, and secure the future of the township of Jabiru. After the budget, Territorians woke up a bit disappointed this morning to see that it's unclear where there's any commitment from the federal government to Kakadu National Park. In contrast, Labor will invest $100 million to upgrade four key access roads; $44 million for environmental and national park infrastructure upgrades; $25 million for a new Kakadu visitor and world heritage interpretive centre in Jabiru; and $2.5 million to improve mobile connectivity in the park. Kakadu National Park is a very important part of our tourism offering but it's also where we are able to see over $60,000 of history and culture in our country—the First Nations stories. That's why this funding is important, because we need to be able to continue to show that to all Australians and the world. The federal Labor leader, Bill Shorten, has committed $220 million to that, starting from our first budget.
A Shorten Labor government will also invest in the health and wellbeing of our veterans in the Top End by establishing the Scott Palmer Service and Veteran's Support Hub. This will also provide services to our first responders and, when they need it, to our currently serving people who may or may not be veterans. This veterans and servicemen and servicewomen support hub will be dedicated to providing support to our current and ex-serving Defence personnel. We've committed $4.9 million, and this centre will be a place where people can go to connect, meet, relax, speak with someone about any issues they might be having, and access community, state, federal and cross-sector services. It will be a place where people can go to get a cup of tea and a chat. The hub will provide— (Time expired)
It's with great pleasure that I rise in this place today to speak about the terrific work that is done by Radio Lollipop at the Logan Hospital. Last week I had the pleasure of presenting the team at Radio Lollipop with a cheque for $50,000 to upgrade the children's ward, which is long overdue. This makeover of the children's playroom, teenager's retreat and procedure room will go a long way towards ensuring that children who are in the ward have a much better environment in which to spend their time. We know that the volunteers at Radio Lollipop have worked very hard to date to see a brighter and more welcoming children's ward, and this additional investment of $50,000 will allow them to take that to another level.
Logan Hospital is a major health centre in the Logan region, and this is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. I just wanted to take this opportunity to say to the team at Logan Hospital: thank you for the terrific work that you do for our community in sometimes very difficult and trying times. We saw that only recently when a couple of staff members at the hospital were injured by a patient through a stabbing. My shout-out goes to those people; I know their recovery is progressing well. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank them for the terrific work they do.
By creating these age-appropriate sanctuaries in the children's ward and the procedure room, the Radio Lollipop team is hoping to relieve some of the trauma that the children face through treatment. This important investment aims to reduce anxiety and promote, importantly, wellbeing for our younger patients, and I think that's critically important. If they have an environment in which they feel relaxed and comfortable, we hope that, as a result of that, their stay is less stressful, they heal quicker and they get home sooner to their families. The children's ward at Logan Hospital sees some 3,000 families a year, and I think this will be a tremendous improvement to those services.
The other announcement we made last week was an additional $520,000 in funding to the Individual Placement and Support Trial at the headspace at Meadowbrook. Sadly, as many as one in four young Australians aged 16 to 24 experience mental illness in any given year. This can really impact on their ability to get or hold a job. This trial, which has been a terrific success, has made a real difference in the lives of some 125 young people. Through extending this trial, we hope to continue to build on those successes so that we can see the young people in our community grow and flourish for the future.
For the thousands of people who drive across the Hawkesbury River at North Richmond, the trip is tough and unreliable. I'm proud that a Shorten Labor government will deliver $200 million to change that. I get how long people have waited in traffic for this commitment to be made, and six years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has meant six years of inaction. This Labor funding commitment is a win. Like bridge users, I am also pleased to see that, finally, the millions of dollars invested by federal Labor in 2010 have been spent to improve the Bells Line intersection. But it should have happened years sooner, and it isn't enough.
When I first ran for parliament, traffic problems were the single biggest issue people raised with me in the Hawkesbury. That's why, in 2010, I stood with Anthony Albanese and committed $20 million for short-term measures and a study to identify longer-term options. But, with the overdevelopment west of the river, the problems will escalate and already have escalated. Of course, this $200 million of Labor funding will go to the New South Wales government to build the bridge. Given the awful experience with the Bells Line of Road and M9 corridors, I'll be demanding a high level of consultation with the community. The process for determining where this bridge goes should be open, transparent and accessible to all. Any acquisition process needs to be fair. I won't allow our community to be excluded and I won't accept a secret process that leaves the people most affected in the dark.
If elderly people waiting more than a year to receive some help to stay in their own homes were hoping for something significant out of this last budget, they will be massively disappointed. There are more than 120,000 people still on the waiting list for an in-home aged-care package. They've been assessed, they've been approved and they'll still be waiting. People like Thelma, Leisa and Tetja get no comfort from the prediction of a future surplus. And how does this government say it is achieving a surplus? By a $5 billion underspend on the NDIS this year and next: by not spending money that has been set aside for people who need new wheelchairs, new hoists and even new limbs; by not spending money on essential speech therapy or occupational therapy; and by not spending money because they delay plans, sometimes for more than a year.
The Liberals are crowing about a surplus built on the exhaustion of people like Amanda and Rachel. This week Amanda said to me:
If only those who say no to the items my children need can just walk a day in my shoes … the lack of funding and the process for NDIS is in my mind disgusting.
Rachel, a strong woman who fights not just for her son but for many others, said:
I'm not sure why the NDIS is letting Cameron down so badly. Every part of my son's day is assisted, he struggles to keep his own head up! Our son requires 24 hour care & we are both mentally, physically & emotionally exhausted.
That's what the Liberals are proud of, and they should be ashamed.
People in my electorate of Hasluck care deeply for the environment, and so it should be no surprise to anyone that, when they chose me to represent them, they chose one who has a deep respect for and connection to this country and to Mother Earth. Their care and respect for the natural environment in the Perth Hills is matched by their care for each other. Seconds after sirens are heard in the hills, mums are on their phones checking emergency apps, dads are calling neighbours and kids are getting ready to pack their favourite toys and jump into the car. My electorate is an extreme fire risk area, and, as our climate changes, this risk will undoubtedly intensify. I've been advised that, in extremely intense fires, water dropped from helicopters and planes onto a fire can evaporate before it hits the ground.
It is in this context that a new development proposed for North Stoneville has resulted in the community rallying against it. I've heard their arguments and that of the developer. Save Perth Hills has more than 4,000 petition signatures, which is a significant number given that the local population in Mundaring and the surrounding areas is not much more than that number. One thousand people have joined the group on Facebook, and they are holding a rally this Sunday, 7 April, at 10.30 at Sculpture Park, Mundaring, which I will attend to hear their concerns. They're not anti development, and neither am I. They are passionate locals who are also highly qualified and eloquent on the issues relating to environmental protection, water usage, fire management, and planning. Hasluck is an electorate of rich diversities, and these skills in our local communities have served the Perth Hills well.
What is unique about the Perth Hills is the flora and fauna. It is an attribute that is part of the Darling escarpment, part of an ancient system that prevailed long before settlement. What they're fighting for is the pristine nature of the Perth Hills. The bushland there is the lungs of our city. The oxygen provided by those plants adds to the health and quality of life that we experience.
I'll always take a stance on the environment. I believe that the bushland that Indigenous Australians enjoyed in that area for 60,000 years plus is unique. The more of it we leave the better it will be for our children, for their future and, more importantly, for the catchment water areas of Perth. Whilst development is essential and important to accommodate the needs of people, there is also a need to balance the demand for living areas and, at the same time, the protection of areas that are in fire-prone zones that are a uniquely Australian habitat that we won't find anywhere else.
It's been six years, three Prime Ministers and three Treasurers—let's face it; the Nationals, with only two leaders, make the Liberals look stable. Six weeks before an election, we got the Liberal budget last night, and it is an absolute con.
The biggest con of all is a projected surplus achieved by short-changing the NDIS—by underfunding people with disabilities in our communities. In the electorate of Lalor, our people support the NDIS. Australians across the country, in the main, support the NDIS. They support making a contribution, knowing that that contribution will go to ensuring support for people with disabilities. What did they find last night? They found that this government has been underfunding that program, leaving people in need of support, leaving people without wheelchairs. I got an email this morning from a local family who have said quite bluntly that they've just become aware in the last month or so that they need intervention for their three-year-old child. What have they found? They've found that there's going to be a stretch to eight months before they're going to get any support. That is the con of this budget.
It's also a con of a budget because this government's running around talking about how well it's funding schools. Like lots of members, I was out the front yesterday with the Australian Education Union, looking at the difference a Labor government will make to state schools across this country. As a former principal and as a former teacher, let me tell you what that means in the seat of Lalor. It means $30 million across three years for the state schools in our area. I know that is going to make a real difference. The reason Labor commits to those things is that we understand the value of education. This government only understand the cost, and that's why last night they failed to fund four-year-old, 15-hour access, universal kindy funding for more than one year. They've done it again. They say, 'Let's back it in, let's say we'll fund it for one year.' That's how much they value early education, that's how much they value educators, that's how much they value the sector.
I tell you what this budget didn't do last night: it didn't do anything about getting wages off the deck. It didn't do anything about restoring penalty rates. In fact, last night's budget says a retail worker will get a $250 tax cut, while a banker will get an $11,000 tax cut. That retail worker won't get their penalty rates back under those opposite. The only way they'll get their penalty rates back is if they vote for a Shorten Labor government in six weeks.
I've been asked what I learnt while attending the United Nations General Assembly in New York. One aspect, in particular, was exceptional. DFAT sponsors eight interns during the United Nations General Assembly. The interns in 2018 were: Genevieve Feely; Bree Smeaton; Caitlin Clifford; Hayley Keen; Sahema Saberi; Alexander Bridges; Kate Renehan; and Amos Washington, the UN Youth Representative. What a joy it was to meet them. I asked them to share their reflections so we could capture them for parliament. Here are their words.
Kate wrote: 'The UN is really just a group of people working together to get the job done. I think when you study law and politics the UN can become this body that exists outside of reach and can be a thing that is put on a pedestal. Whilst it is exciting and insane, and some of the characters you see are miles outside of a usual workplace, seeing some of the bureaucratic and benign aspects was important to get the perspective that the UN is still just another workplace where people are doing their jobs, furthering the state's national interest or trying to keep the peace.'
Hayley wrote: 'There's a real opportunity here for Australia to drive world-changing foreign policy if we give diplomats space to act. Australia is seen as a great partner and the government should be proud and want innovation in our work here.'
Caitlin wrote: 'The most important lesson was empathy—learning to see the world through others' eyes by asking, "What do they see and how might this inform their perspective?" I learnt to look for common ground and to find strength in our diversity, since diversity injects new perspectives, networks and resources that challenge institutional deadlocks and paradigms.'
Genevieve wrote: 'Having your world view challenged is a good thing. As I worked mostly on Israel-Palestine issues I had to set aside my personal opinions and sometimes even actively work against them. Funnily enough, when I was open to it, my opinion was changed and I'm now glad it was, because seeing the shades of grey in what is presented as a black-and-white issue is very helpful. It made me realise how lucky we are to be from such a well-respected and liked country.'
Some other points related to the scale of the information—how easy it was for horrific numbers to become sanitised from the safety of New York, hearing that 15 million people are starving in Yemen or of the millions of refugees fleeing violence in Myanmar and Syria. It's difficult to comprehend. Amos spoke of his journey in gathering the voices of the youth of Australia. The final insight was from Kate: 'I think one of lighter lessons I took from New York was that diplomats are as much actors as they are experts. Part of the job is representative and sometimes it requires a strong poker face or, for some states, a powerful dramatic streak.' Just like parliament, I would say!
Sahema, whose words were not captured, is a young woman of Muslim faith, sharing her life and gentle views with all of us, reassuring us of Australia's potential to move forward beyond the hysteria of prejudice and love others for who they are. And there's Bree, with her effervescent personality. You are all amazing.
This is another budget without anything for traffic congestion in my electorate of Griffith on the south side of Brisbane. You would have thought that this would be the budget where the coalition finally gets its act together on busting traffic congestion in the inner south. You might have thought they would finally be funding Cross River Rail, a project that has been an incredibly high priority nationally since 2012—but there is no money in this budget for Cross River Rail.
We need funding for Cross River Rail. Labor has committed $2.24 billion to Cross River Rail—a project that will increase the frequency of trains, that will get more cars off the road, that will allow more people to get public transport into the CBD instead of having to drive. Where is the money for Cross River Rail? I'm sick and tired of having to do press conferences and speeches calling on the Commonwealth to deliver for Cross River Rail. It turns out that the only way to get federal funding for Cross River Rail is to elect a Shorten Labor government—in about six weeks time—and that's what I'll be fighting for. I'll be fighting every day until the election to get federal funding in relation to Cross River Rail, because it's congestion-busting infrastructure that we need for the inner south. We need to get cars off the road into the future. If we don't do this sort of transformative project, the estimated economic costs of traffic congestion in the inner south are expected to go up almost fivefold by 2031.
Do you know what else isn't in the budget, interestingly enough? There is no funding for the level-crossing removal at Cavendish Road, Coorparoo. This is a major traffic snarl for the south side. Removing this level crossing wouldn't just help my electors; it would help electors in Bowman, Bonner and other southside areas, because it is such a major traffic snarl. You don't have to take my word for it—the LNP council knows it should be a priority. They put it into their city plan back in 2014. Of course, they didn't give any money for it. They're not funding the removal of the level crossing!
When is the LNP going to realise that this level crossing must be removed? It was a 2016 priority for the South East Queensland Council of Mayors; it is a priority again in the 2019 people mass movement study that the council released recently. I call on the Commonwealth to make a federal contribution to getting rid of this level crossing, to get the project moving. The south side has waited long enough. We need some projects that will actually bust congestion. We don't want to be ignored by the coalition. We actually want to see federal funding for congestion-busting infrastructure.
As I said, traffic congestion and transport will be a key issue at this federal election. It's incredibly important that we continue to push for congestion-busting infrastructure for the inner south. I will continue working with my colleagues, including Matthew Campbell, the Labor candidate for Coorparoo Ward. We've got a petition going about the Coorparoo Square development, which has been a terrible failure by the LNP council to deal with traffic. We will continue fighting for congestion-busting infrastructure in the inner south.
The northern Victoria food bowl of the Goulburn-Murray irrigation district produces dairy products, fruit, meat and grains for pubs, restaurants, supermarkets and cafes and for all the families across Australia and around the world. The success of this massively productive area is due to one of the most efficient and effective irrigation systems in Australia. But, currently, the temporary water market is so expensive that water is trading at between $450 and $510 a megalitre. In the current market, to produce milk our dairy farmers cannot run their farming businesses, with the cost of water moving above $200. So they are currently priced totally out of the water market.
As of 28 February, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder was holding 1,473 gigalitres—over a million megalitres—in storage in the Southern Connected Basin. Of this, 270 gigalitres was held in the Goulburn system and 308 gigalitres was held in the Murray system. This water is for environmental assets, but currently all of the environmental asset targets in Victoria are being met because the rivers are running so high, due to the fact that there is trade water in the rivers moving from one region downstream to other commodities. So all of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's assets are being met and the Environmental Water Holder is sitting there with over 600 gigalitres of water just in the GMID sitting in its account. We have been calling for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to release 50 to 100 gigalitres of water onto the market at a reduced cost so that we might be able to help some of the farmers. If they are able to do that, I'm sure the federal government would also be able to get in and assist with the discounting of this water, to make it available for dairy so that we might give some respite to some of these farmers who are having to sell their cows to the abattoirs or, if they're lucky, to other milking herds.
At the moment, we are receiving a blank 'no'. Phillip Glyde from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority says he can't do this, because environmental water must be used for environmental purposes. We know that that is not true, because they've already released water to the agricultural sector on previous occasions. Jody Swirepik from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder says that we cannot release environmental water for agriculture, because we might need it next year. We don't know about next year. So they're going to carry over these obscene amounts of water that aren't needed anywhere but the agricultural sector, which is desperately in need of this water at a discounted rate. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is simply going to sit it there. This water was always meant to be able to be shared between agriculture in dry times and given back to the environment in other years.
It is an honour to be able to stand here today in my final days as a parliamentarian to remember the extraordinary life of Adrian George Hingston Cook QC. Adrian's intelligence was far beyond normal. Adrian's teachers could see his potential from a very young age. He sat for his leaving certificate twice, as the first time he was too young to attend university. At the tender age of 17, he enrolled at the University of Sydney to study arts and pursue his dream of becoming a teacher.
On completing his degree, again his age held him back. He was too young to graduate from university, because back then you had to be 21 to graduate. So what else was there to do but to apply for and accept a scholarship program to study law for a further three years. When Adrian did finally graduate, he did so with a double degree in arts and law. It is at the point of graduating university where this remarkable life story gets really fascinating. Adrian gained employment as a judge's associate and became a barrister when he was in his 20s. In 1963, he became the youngest barrister ever to win a murder trial at the Privy Council in London; he was just 33. This was an extraordinary man.
Adrian spent a lengthy time working in the Australian Army Legal Corps, dealing mainly with complex and difficult courts martial during the Vietnam War. He was later appointed Queen's Counsel in 1977 and then a judge in the Family Court. He retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel in 1985. During his time as a judge, he made many landmark decisions and presided over cases that are still studied by law students today. Adrian eventually retired and moved to Norfolk Island, where he remained active in the community, providing legal advice and taking on the odd legal case. He also served as a minister in the Norfolk Island government and married his beloved wife, Lynn Quintal. Adrian was one of Norfolk Island's jewels. He was an asset to the community and he will be greatly missed. Vale Adrian George Hingston Cook QC.
For the rest of my time, I will focus on the budget and the complete and utter contempt that this government has once again shown for Canberra. Once again we're seeing cuts to the Public Service as a result of decentralisation. Once again we're seeing huge job losses in a number of our agencies—Veterans' Affairs, Human Services, Agriculture and Water. And once again we are getting an insultingly small amount of the $100 billion infrastructure spend. Canberra: we get $50 million! Of that, $30 million is for upgrades to the Kings Highway. The Kings Highway isn't even in the ACT. This budget underscores once again that this government has no respect for our servants of democracy and no respect for our nation's capital.
I take my job as the member for Petrie very seriously. I love to represent the people in my electorate, and I get out and listen to as many people as I can about their priorities for our electorate. We've delivered some great projects recently: major road upgrades; sporting facilities; community facilities; increases in essential services for health, hospitals and schools; the local environment, which is really important; and safer streets with CCTV. But there's always more to do.
Last night I was really pleased to be able to deliver some great local projects in the budget for my community, including $500,000 for the Redcliffe coast guard, who protect people on the water and help out people who use the water regularly. We're going to extend their club house, and I want to thank everyone for that campaign and for getting on board. Also. We've got $263,000 to upgrade lighting facilities for the North Lakes Eels AFL club, who play out of Mango Hill at St Benedicts Close, and enable them to get more juniors playing. There's $1 million for the North Lakes Blues Netball Club. North Lakes has a massive shortage of sporting facilities, which is why I've been so vocal and strongly against the sale of the North Lakes Golf Course. We want to make sure the council doesn't rezone that sport and recreational facility to residential aged care. The new courts for the Blues will be great for young girls and women who play netball. There's $300,000 for the Ridge Hills soccer club down in Bald Hills.
We've recently upgraded a lot of major roads. When we were elected in 2013, an election promise was to upgrade the Gateway Motorway. I'm really pleased that in the infrastructure spend—they're moving it from $75 billion up to $100 billion—there's $800 million for the Gateway Motorway, which runs from St John Fisher in Bracken Ridge through to the Pine River, because that is still a bit of a bottleneck northbound in the afternoon. It will help all of those people in the Moreton Bay region, from Griffin, Mango Hill, North Lakes and Deception Bay up to Burpengary East. So that's great.
I want to say thanks to the people in my electorate. I will continue to work hard and fight hard for the area. I think the budget last night was good. I got into politics because my father always taught me to spend less than I earn. It's great that the budget for next year has, for the first time, come back into surplus. That's very important. It's how we can deliver lower taxes and make sure that people get to keep more of what they earn. The less tax that Canberra takes, the more for you—to help you with the cost of living, to raise your family, to pay off your house and everything else. As your federal member, I'll continue to fight hard, listen to you and do the best I can.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
On behalf of the community that I'm privileged to represent in this place, can I extend my condolences to the families of the victims of the terrorist attack in Christchurch 19 days ago, to the people of Christchurch and to all of the people of New Zealand. As you well know, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Laundy, I represent a part of Australia where every Friday a lot of people do what those 50 people were doing on that peaceful Friday afternoon in Christchurch: they gather in mosques and community halls and they pray. For that reason, it's affected my community more than many others in Australia.
That night I got a text message from a friend of mine telling me that his little boy was too scared to leave the house. At Lakemba Mosque that night, there were thousands of people gathered out the front and inside—people of all different faiths and backgrounds. Some were crying; many, like my friend's son, were scared; all were grieving. But very few of the people that I met and spoke to at the mosque that night were surprised or even shocked. So many of the people that I represent in this place have lived in fear of this, almost expecting this, for a long, long time. But that doesn't answer the question: how does something like this happen? How does somebody do something so monstrous—walk into a room where people are praying and just start shooting? How does somebody kill the person at the front door who welcomed him in, kill schoolkids, kill a three-year-old little boy? A three-year-old little boy!
That little boy's name was Mucad Ibrahim. He was three years old. I've got a little boy at home and he's almost three. He woke up the other night crying—he'd fallen out of his bed—and I calmed him down. He told me that the monsters had pushed him out of bed. I told him that monsters aren't real, they're just pretend, and put him back to sleep. I didn't tell him the truth that night—that monsters are real. How else do you explain what happened in Christchurch a couple of weeks ago? And it's not just Christchurch. We see the same horror story play out in other parts of the world—different monsters and different warped ideologies, but all driven by the same insane hate. Except that's not the right word, because it's not insane; that's an excuse that people like this don't deserve. It's a deep-seated hate full of racism and bigotry.
But how does it happen? I don't think it's good enough for us to just blame the internet. It's part of the problem—it's a big part; search around enough on the internet and you'll find the sorts of things that can poison people's minds and help turn them into monsters—but we've got politicians in this place that preach the same sort of hate, the same sort of bigotry and the same sort of ugliness that you can just as easily find online. And I'm not just talking about Fraser Anning. He is the worst of us—he is the worst of us—but he's not the only one. There are people in this place who have made an art out of scaring good people by telling them that bad people are coming to get them, to swamp them, to change their laws or to take their jobs. There are people in this place who have described Islam as a disease. They've described someone's faith as a disease.
What I think we need in this place is the sort of leadership that we've seen in New Zealand in the last few weeks—the sort of leadership that Jacinda Ardern has shown. In the worst of all possible circumstances the Prime Minister of New Zealand has proven herself to be an exceptional leader, everything that her community needs: compassionate, caring, strong, decisive; binding the wounds of her country with her words and with her deeds.
But it's not just what Jacinda Ardern has done that we should look to New Zealand for for inspiration. It's how the whole community has reacted, from non-Muslims standing guard while Muslims pray, to the elderly man who only survived the gunfire because he was shielded by his wife and who forgave the monster who killed her. His name is Farid Ahmed. What an extraordinary human being.
The people of New Zealand haven't been divided by what has happened; they've only come closer together. And we can do this here too in Australia if we try. Whenever there's a terrorist attack anywhere around the world and the perpetrator is a Muslim, I often get asked to comment. And I often get asked, 'What more should the Muslim community be doing to stop this from happening?' I say that you can't blame a community for the actions of one monster, of one demented mind. But I also say there's always more that we can do, that mums and dads can do, that teachers can do, that medical professionals can do and that community leaders can do. In this case the terrorist was a white supremacist born here in Australia, and so let's ask the same question: what else should we be doing? What else should we all be doing to stop the spread of this sort of hatred in our community—not just on the internet and not just here in this parliament but everywhere? If we learn anything out of the horror of what happened in Christchurch, I hope it's the answer to this question.
At the memorial service on Friday, the New Zealand Prime Minister asked of her country this:
… be the place that we wish to be.
A place that is diverse … kind and compassionate. Those values represent the very best of us.
She said:
… we are not immune to … hate …
But we can be the nation that discovers the cure.
Let us aspire to be that nation.
I would like to echo the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The attacks in Christchurch were a disgusting manifestation of the worst side of humanity. Our hearts go out to the people of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand aren't our neighbours; they are our family. We live together, serve together, compete in sports together. In fact, our first success as a country in international tennis was as Australasia, with the great champion Anthony Wilding and Norman Brookes winning the Davis Cup. That went back to 1905. When tragedy strikes here, it is felt there, and this has been shown by the outpouring of grief here. We feel their loss most keenly.
It would be tragic if this was a senseless attack, but, if anything, this is worse because the deranged shooter thought he saw sense. His extremist views weren't a product of his own mind; they were fostered and nurtured by others around the world. He did what he did because he saw it was a logical endpoint for his thoughts and beliefs. This means there could be others out there harbouring similar thoughts, and there are definitely people out there who are encouraging extremist views. We must be ever vigilant in the fight against these views.
Sadly, we have people here in this parliament who have stoked these tensions. I've spoken in this chamber before about the disgusting nature of the views held by some senators, but I've never considered the effect they could have on an unhinged mind who would act on these racist words. Thankfully, there is no shortage of people lining up to condemn the words of Fraser Anning, and I note that a censure motion is going through the Senate as I speak. This is particularly poignant because it is also his last ever day as a senator—good riddance!
It's good to see that our public debate is ready to condemn hateful words like his but it is sad that we need to, and concerning that there are people who listen to the hate speech in the first place. Whereas the story in Australia quickly turned to the hateful comments of the senator, thankfully, across the ditch, we had an example of how to behave in the face of tragedy. Jacinda Ardern has been the perfect leader in recent weeks—caring and sympathetic, yet so very strong. She has ensured that the focus of the disaster has been on the people of Christchurch and the community that uses this mosque. They are the victims we must be listening to and the heroes we must be celebrating. Jacinda has ensured that this has happened, and we must congratulate her for that.
The opposite reaction came from the President of Turkey. He played footage of the event at political rallies and tried to utilise the apparent schism between the West and Islam as a political tool ahead of the general election. This has been roundly condemned and seems not to have helped in the polls. I obviously agree that his comments were tasteless and his use of the footage disgusting but we must temper our condemnation, no matter how hard it is to do so. The gunman knew his actions would not end a war; he was looking to start one. He was looking for escalation, and escalation is easy to achieve when the stakes are so high. It is the easiest thing to start a war of words over these actions and point a wider finger of blame, but to do so would be exactly what the gunman would have wanted. I want to condemn the Turkish leader's remarks because they are exactly how the gunman wanted him to react, but I can't condemn them because that is how the gunman would have wanted us to react in turn.
I have already seen racist and neo-Nazi graffiti in my electorate, which is one of the most diverse in the country but also one of the most harmonious. We must condemn hatred and condemn all extremist actions, but we must do so by targeting those at fault—those who have committed and incited these atrocities—not by targeting broad sections of the community in which we live. We must come together as friends across communities, religions and ethnicities. We must stand against hatred and extremist ideologies from all corners and condemn those equally.
Some of the most moving words of the remembrance service in Christchurch went to Yusuf Islam. He spoke of opposites—how an act so barbaric can actually foster unity and harmony, and people coming together against such an atrocity. He spoke of how Christianity and Islam are brothers, religious brothers, worshipping the same god, both preaching peace, and he spoke of love.
I'd like to end with a thought on my past career. People regularly ask me about what I learnt from playing tennis—'How could playing a sport relate to real life?' Well, sport teaches you to get up when you're down. Sport teaches you to respect those around you, and, at the beginning of every tennis match, the score is 'love all'.
Many of us, no doubt—probably everyone in the country—remember where we were when we heard the terrible news from Christchurch coming through. For us in Melbourne on that Friday, many would have been at Friday prayers and the mosques would have been full as usual. Many people would have been going about their ordinary business. Many of us were watching the best of Melbourne and the best of humanity on display, as thousands of students were marching in the street calling for a better future. All of us had our hearts broken. It was a heartbreaking moment for Melbourne and the grief was palpable, especially, as is the case now, as people ended up hearing the news come out, as the reports got more informed, and people started to learn about the heroes who went back in to save others, only to find themselves getting shot. We heard about children as young as my own children losing their lives. We heard about people who were doing nothing more than taking time at a very special moment to reflect in a place of worship, only to find that it turned into the worst day of their lives. They and their family members will bear the grief of that for the rest of their lives.
At that time we saw Melbourne coming together and expressing support for the people in New Zealand. The connection with New Zealand amongst many members of the Somali community in Melbourne is especially close—as is the case for broader Australia. What meant a lot was seeing people from across faiths stand up and express their support. We saw strong representation in Melbourne from members of various faiths at the various services: the Sikhs, Anglicans, Catholics and even the Jewish faith. They stood up and talked about what happens when hatred like this is allowed to spread, and that support meant a lot.
I spent that evening and throughout that whole weekend talking to members of the Muslim community in my local electorate. The message that they wanted me to convey to everyone—to this parliament and to the community more broadly—is that the coming together at that time and in the form of this motion actually means something. That weekend, coincidentally, happened to be weekend that the Islamic Council of Victoria had set aside for the open mosque weekend. They made what I think was the right decision—I know they had to think about it, but they made the right decision—to keep that going over the weekend. They kept the doors of Melbourne's mosques open to the population.
I went to two mosques in my electorate that day, to the ICV Mosque in West Melbourne first. It was standing room only. I've been into that place many times, but never have I walked into it and found that I had to navigate my way through a narrow doorway that became even narrower because of the number of flowers that people had come and laid at the door. Looking inside, I saw a sea of people. They were not only coming in upstairs, to listen to the sheik and the various members of the ICV board speak and to hear other members from across the political spectrum and across the community speak but also coming in downstairs and going through the prayer spaces.
People were understanding and wanting to reach out for the first time, not only to have a better understanding of what happens inside these places of worship but also to say, 'We're here for you.' It was the same at the Albanian mosque in Carlton, Melbourne's first mosque. The flowers stretched out onto the footpath. As we went in and were invited to join in the prayers, again, it was standing room only. There were people who had walked past that mosque many times. Perhaps there were some who didn't even know it was there. They wanted to come in and say, 'We are with you.' The message from people was, 'By attacking you they have attacked us.' This was because Melbourne, like New Zealand, is a place where everyone has a place. It is a place where we never want to see hatred on the basis of race grow. We never want to see that. People turned out in their hundreds and then in their thousands to send that message as the vigils were held during the week.
It shouldn't take tragedy to bring out the best in us, or perhaps to send Australia in a different direction to the one it had been going in. But if there is anything like a silver lining—if we can even talk about a silver lining or anything good that can come out of it—it is, hopefully, that the best of what is in all of us stood up over that weekend and in the weeks since to say, 'We are with you,' to say to our Muslim sisters and brothers, 'We are all with you.'
But perhaps one of the hardest things for me to hear over that weekend as I was talking to members of our Muslim community—our sisters and our brothers—was how many of them said, 'Well, actually, we're not surprised; we expected something like this to happen,' or, 'Actually, some things like this are happening all the time.' That was a truly shocking thing to hear. This shocked most of us. It broke our hearts. It came with the full force of, potentially, the unexpected.
To hear people say, 'No, it's not unexpected; don't be at all surprised that things like this happen,' is in many ways a confronting thing to hear, but actually they're right. Whilst I am pleased that the Prime Minister has moved this motion and we're having this moment of reflection, much of this has been coming for some time. The conditions that have been created for what has happened in New Zealand have, in many ways, been created here in Australia. I'd say to the Prime Minister—and Melbourne wants to say to the Prime Minister—thank you for moving this motion, but you don't get to wipe your hands of it now, when for the last decade or two you have overseen the normalisation of hate speech and division in this country.
It started when Pauline Hanson was elected to the House of Representatives and said, at that time, that she was worried about 'the Asians'. Yes, after that we saw her be excommunicated, but we also saw the government effectively pick up pretty much all of her policies. We saw it when John Howard was prepared to lie to people, to the Australian public, in saying that people who were doing nothing more than coming here to seek safety were throwing their children overboard. For the sake of winning votes, he was prepared to lie and to demonise people. Yes, those people might have been perceived to be different from us, but they were actually the same. When you say that people are almost subhuman in that they would throw their children overboard, you start to normalise people's being treated as less than us—not only different but less than us.
We've had 15 or 20 years of saying that refugees are somehow less than us; that, because they're a threat to us, we need to treat them as less than human with less-than-human rights. In outer Melbourne over a decade ago a young Sudanese man was beaten to death by people who said, 'We're here because we want to take our town back,' and a Liberal Party minister in the federal government at the time stood up and said, 'Africans are failing to integrate.' They blamed someone who had just been beaten to death rather than calling out the hate for what it was. When, in an attempt to win votes, the Minister for Home Affairs comes to Victoria and says that people are worried about going out to eat because of African gangs—
Mr Watts interjecting—
Right. He says, to try to win votes, people are worried about going out to eat because of African gangs—in a town that he knows next to nothing about. I'm reminded that he didn't even have the courtesy to come to Melbourne to say it. He said it from outside to try to influence a state election and, hopefully, a federal election; to try to sow fear and division in Melbourne and Victoria just for the sake of winning votes. When you say that maybe it was the wrong decision to allow Lebanese Muslims to come here, because there's a problem with integration, then you have a role in creating this climate of hate. You've overseen this climate of hate and fear in a grubby attempt to win votes. So, no, you do not get to wipe your hands of it with a condolence motion. You need to stand up and say, 'We are at a crossroads and we can do better.'
You don't have to look far to see what real leadership looks like; you just have to look over the ditch to see what real leadership looks like. So many of us were waiting for that real leadership. Instead, what did we get a couple of days later? We got: 'By the way, this election campaign is still going to be run on immigration. This time we're going to blame the refugees for the trains being full, instead of blaming it on our own failure to fund infrastructure properly.'
People have sussed you out. People have worked out that using hate, fear and division to try to win votes creates the conditions where others will pick up that message and take it to the worst extreme. The worst thing is that so many of us have been warning you—pleading with you—not to do this, because we know where it ends. People have been pleading with the senior figures in government not to use race and division to win votes, because it unleashes demons. But no. It was thought that you could keep doing it with no cost. Well, we know that there's a cost. And of course it's not just the government; others play a role in it as well. The media plays a role in it as well. The media has taken people who get just over one per cent of the vote in this country and given them a national platform every week to speak. Then the media acts surprised that the shooter's manifesto reads like One Nation's policy—yes, and you've been giving that policy an airing for the last 15 years. We should not act surprised.
But we can do something about it, and people are wising up. I say to those who would use hate and fear to try and win votes: the country is coming to rip that dog whistle off you. People have had enough. I hope, as we head into this election campaign—which will be fought hard, as every election campaign is; that's what you expect—that we can go back to the time that we used to have, certainly in Victoria when I first got elected, when there seemed to be a consensus that you wouldn't use race to try and win votes. One of the best bits about my job when I first came to this place, back in 2010, was going to events where the Liberal Party state Minister for Multicultural Affairs would get up and say, 'The good thing about Victoria is that we've got Labor, Liberal and the Greens all here, all accepting that multiculturalism is the defining feature, and you're never going to find us trying to divide people to win votes.' I hope that we can go back to that. I hope that that's what the coming weeks will be like, because they could potentially be defining weeks for us.
To our Muslim sisters and brothers: know that we are all with you, and know that we have heard what you are saying and that you want Australia to remain a place where everyone has a place. That is what I hope that Melbourne will always be.
There is much I could say on that contribution, but I shan't. As somebody who represents an electorate and a community that hosts some 216 different cultures, I'm proud to say that we very rarely, if ever, see discord and division. I'm blessed to live in a community where those cultures work together harmoniously and for the betterment of the community for all involved. The events of Christchurch a couple of weeks ago are a sad indictment of the lengths that some people can go to to treat their fellow human beings so poorly, with such disregard and such disdain.
In my electorate I have a population of six per cent or more whose heritage is Maori or New Zealander, according to the 2016 census. It is one of the abiding privileges of living in Australia, and our relationship with New Zealand that goes back so many years, that all of us in our communities have a large number of people who have New Zealand and Maori heritage. Equally, there would be many Australians who live in the New Zealand community. My fellow chair of the Australia-New Zealand parliamentary friendship group, Joel Fitzgibbon, and I took the opportunity shortly after the atrocity occurred to contact the New Zealand High Commissioner to Australia, Dame Annette King, and pass on our condolences. We also wrote to the high commissioner and to the New Zealand government and people to express our condolences and support for the New Zealand community.
I think, as many others do, all we can do in this place is condemn such a senseless act as occurred at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques in Christchurch on 15 March, which claimed the lives of 50 innocent men, women and children. My prayers and thoughts go out to all of those affected and to the whole of New Zealand. Equally, my thoughts and prayers are with my local Muslim community, including those at the Eagleby Kotku Mosque and the Baitul Masroor Mosque. I've met with a number of those people over the past couple of weeks, just in general conversations, and passed on my condolences and thoughts to them.
As I said at the outset, one of the great things about the community in which I live is that I don't see the things that, sadly, the member for Melbourne spoke about earlier. I see a community that is united, that seeks to ensure that the issues that may occur in other communities do not occur in ours. Irrespective of race, religion, colour or creed, we work extraordinarily hard to ensure that we have community harmony and unity. I want to call out the fact that there is no place in our communities for the hatred that was demonstrated in Christchurch. Events like that do nothing to build in our society and our community the cohesiveness and integrity that we need as a country, or as countries, to move forward.
As somebody who grew up in a migrant family—my parents came to Australia in the mid-1960s—I've had a variety of experiences, and I can say some of those weren't always pleasant. But I've tried not to let those experiences define me and, with my background, I'm very conscious to ensure that when I see those things happening in my community I call them out. I'm always focused on ensuring that for new arrivals to our country. I'm sure all of us in this place have the privilege of attending citizenship ceremonies. We get to meet some wonderful people who have sought to make Australia their new home. We welcome them with open arms and we say that during our ceremony. But it is not just about saying those words at citizenship ceremonies; it's actually about demonstrating and living that on a day-to-day basis in our communities. Those people have come here to create a new life for themselves, to be able to live free of fear. Many of them have come from very difficult circumstances overseas. As we saw with the attacks in Christchurch and other events that we've seen here in Australia, these people who desire to do our community harm and to break those bonds in our community that make it what it is today have no place.
I'm pleased to say that, with the support of those on the other side, we are seeing steps also being taken to reduce or eliminate the capacity for these sorts of acts of terrorism and other violent activities to be spread through social media. This is incredibly important, because the ability that is provided through these platforms can encourage others to undertake the same acts. I know the member for Melbourne Ports, in his valedictory speech the other day, touched on the fact that in a lot of cases we don't even know if they're real people on those social media platforms. I think that was a very valid point by the member for Melbourne Ports.
I hope the steps that all of us are taking in this place, in that space, in time will help improve the situation. I think the most important step we can take as members of our community is to continue to engage with our communities, to ensure that we encourage them to continue to work together and respect all in our communities, irrespective of their background, values or beliefs. We can always learn from others. I say that to schoolkids regularly: be prepared to learn from others. Most importantly, treat others as you would have them treat you. We are all human beings who want to lead a safe, prosperous life not only for ourselves but for our families, for our kids. We all want a better future for our communities.
My heart goes out to the families in Christchurch who have lost their loved ones. My thoughts and prayers are with them. I know the New Zealand government is doing a tremendous job to help support those families in a very difficult time. I hope they also know that they have the full support of the Australian community as well. My friends in the New Zealand community in my electorate of Forde also know that they have our support in this very difficult circumstance. I'd like to thank all of those in my community who have taken time out to pass on their thoughts and condolences to the families and community of New Zealand as well.
I think we should be very proud of our country and our multicultural society. Are there issues and concerns? Yes. And, sadly, there will always be people who seek to do harm. But, provided we stay strong as a community and also look at the good that occurs, I think our society and our community can be so much better as a result. To the people of New Zealand: my heartfelt condolences and sympathies.
On 15 March 2019, 50 women, men and children were murdered by an Australian terrorist at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques in Christchurch. This atrocity has been shocking and saddening for all people of goodwill around the world. Our thoughts, first and foremost, are with those mourning an unimaginable loss and those still fighting to recover physically and confront the incredible trauma of this event emotionally.
Australians have been united in expressing their grief and condolences to the people of New Zealand, and Kiwis of the Muslim faith in particular. Like thousands of other residents of Melbourne's west, in the community that I represent in this place, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and I visited the Australian Islamic Centre in Newport on open mosque day, on the Sunday after the attack, to show our solidarity with the Muslim community in Australia and New Zealand at this difficult time. I was proud of the way our community responded to this atrocity, united in our grief and compassion, to show support to those in mourning and in fear.
The fact that one of our own could commit such an act in a country so much like our own has been a cause for much reflection. The actions of the monster who committed this attack do not reflect our values as Australians—particularly not the values that we live in Melbourne's west. But we need to be honest: our Muslim community had experienced a growing tide of hate speech in the lead-up to the attack in Christchurch. More definitive facts about the terrorist will be established in the coming weeks and months, particularly in the royal commission initiated by the New Zealand Prime Minister into the atrocity. It's clear that there are implications from this atrocity that we need to confront in Australia.
The Christchurch mosque attacks confirm that right-wing extremism and white nationalism are a real security threat to Australia that must be taken seriously by law enforcement and security agencies, by mainstream and new media and by our political figures. I've warned this place about this issue in the past, after the murder of UK parliamentarian Jo Cox. All have cause to reflect in the period after this attack. Law enforcement ought to take the activities of white-nationalist extremists, particularly their online activities, more seriously in light of these events.
Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton has recently described the approach taken by white-nationalist groups in Australia as being 'more rhetorical and ideologically based' than violent 'to date'. This qualifier doesn't give me much comfort. We should all understand clearly that the Christchurch terrorist was suffused with the rhetoric and ideology based activities of Australian white-nationalist groups. Chief Commissioner Ashton identified the Lads Society, an offshoot of United Patriots Front, and the Antipodean Resistance as being the most active white-nationalist groups in this space in Victoria. The United Patriots Front is a coalition of individuals and groups who have been opposed to the construction of mosques in Australia.
The ABC has reported that the Christchurch terrorist was a regular commenter on the Facebook pages of the United Patriots Front and an adjacent group, True Blue Crew, for nearly a year. He's also reported to have expressed his admiration for Blair Cottrell, a convicted arsonist and domestic violence abuser, who has called for a picture of Adolf Hitler to be hung in every Australian classroom and who is also one of the founders of the United Patriots Front, lately the Lads Society. In these posts, the Christchurch terrorist commented:
Globalists and Marxists on suicide watch, patriots and nationalists triumphant—looking forward to Emperor Blair Cottrell coming soon.
The Christchurch terrorist also seems to have made a donation to the United Patriots Front in the past.
Some have sought to play up the fact that the Christchurch terrorist has spent little time in Australia in recent years. This may be true physically, but the online activities of Australian white-nationalist groups have clearly had an enormous impact on him. You only have to look at the profile picture he used online to understand this. It's taken directly from the iconography of what some refer to as Dingo Twitter and its fellow travellers on 8chan. The actions of individuals in these groups, online or offline, need to be taken seriously in the context of the Christchurch attacks. Unfortunately, in the past we've seen threats and harassment by white-nationalist groups not taken seriously by police and other law enforcement in Australia. I was particularly surprised to read in the newspapers this morning a quote from Assistant Commissioner Mick Willing, head of the New South Wales counter-terrorism unit:
Everything we have seen indicates that all of these groups and individuals are engaged online. We have no evidence that there are physical meetings or clubs as such.
Putting to one side the public Reclaim Australia rallies addressed by Blair Cottrell and these groups. or the anti-mosque or anti-African Australian rallies organised by these groups, the ABC has attended an in-person meeting of the Lads Society in Sydney and reported on it. The activities of white-nationalist groups in Australia need to be given far greater scrutiny than they are at present.
Our media also need to reflect on the way they engage with these extremists. For far too long, these white-nationalist extremists have been given platforms in our media to promote their views. We know that the Christchurch terrorist was at home watching and cheering on Blair Cottrell when Cottrell was interviewed on Australian television. He commented at the time:
Knocked it out of the park tonight Blair … Your retorts had me smiling, nodding, cheering and often laughing. Never believed we would have a true leader of the nationalist movement in Australia, and especially not so early in the game.
There is nothing to be gained from giving white nationalists platforms. They and their supporters have not reasoned their way into their race based theories and they cannot be reasoned out of them. Giving them the legitimacy of airing their views on mainstream media platforms builds their credibility in the online extremist forums they frequent. These online forums in particular bear a heavy responsibility in fighting this extremism. The time when white supremacists can use mainstream social media platforms to poison the minds of the alienated and the vulnerable must come to an end. Facebook and YouTube should not permit the live streaming of terrorist attacks, true, but nor should they create places for white nationalists to recruit and plan their activities and nor should their automated content algorithms push this extremist content on unsuspecting users.
We need to respond also to the less respectable online forums in which the real violent radicalisation of individuals occurs. If these forums won't kick out violent extremists, companies who provide support to these forums ought to be pressured to cut them off. Payment processes, domain registrars and hosting companies should all be marshalled in this cause. We must socially ostracise and repress these white nationalists at every opportunity.
This goes for political figures too. MPs and political parties need to educate themselves about the ways that white nationalists seek to build their profile and promote their views. It is no longer acceptable to be ignorant of this movement and to assist in its promotion, whether witting or unwitting. It's not acceptable for political figures to be ignorant of the origins and intent of coded language and symbols deliberately used by white nationalist groups to promote their causes, like the 'it's okay to be white' slogan, endorsed by the coalition in the Senate last year—unwittingly, I'm sure—or the 'white power' hand gesture used both by the Christchurch terrorist in his court appearance and by mainstream conservative activists in Australia—again, I hope, unwittingly. It is not acceptable for coalition MPs to appear at rallies pushing the 'white genocide' trope, coined by white nationalist groups deliberately to stoke racial divisions and fear and which was notably pushed by Blair Cottrell in his mainstream media television appearances. It's not acceptable for coalition MPs to unwittingly appear on the podcasts of white supremacists. It's not acceptable to allow the infiltration of Australian political parties by these white nationalist groups—coordinated infiltration, as we saw in the National Party last year. As my colleague the member for Chifley, the first Muslim to be a frontbencher in this parliament, eloquently put it recently:
Public figures should be just as accountable for the content that is shaped by their deeds and words.
… … …
Leadership must be exercised when it can make a difference, not as an afterthought.
Now is the time for all of us to exercise that leadership, because now is the time to make this difference. As the Leader of the Opposition said in the chamber yesterday:
Christchurch stands as a warning, a lesson and a reminder that, if one plays with the poison politics of racism, if we encourage majorities to pick on minorities, if we try and whip up fear about people who worship different gods and if we try and pretend that all of the problems in this country can be blamed on the people who happened to arrive last, we forfeit the right to be shocked when the worst of consequences occurs.
The Leader of the Opposition came to the Australian Islamic Centre of Newport in my electorate on the Sunday after these attacks, and spent 2½ hours talking with my community about these attacks. He told the thousands of people who came to that mosque for open mosque day: 'No more hate speech should be tolerated. Not all right-wing extremist hate speech ends in right-wing extremist violence, but all right-wing extremist violence begins with right-wing extremist hate speech. If you create a swamp of hate speech, you cannot disown what crawls out of the swamp.' This is something we should all reflect on, particularly in the lead-up to the coming federal election.
Bigotry and race based politics have no place in the strong and successful multicultural nation that Australia has become. The next election should be about policy, not division and dog whistles. It should be about ideas, not fear. I'm convinced that that's the reason the vast majority of members in this chamber came to this parliament and that is the spirit that we should move forward in, in the wake of the Christchurch attacks.
I've been fortunate to represent a very diverse electorate in the time that I have been here in this parliament. I came into parliament in 2001, two months after September 11. That was a very difficult time for the world community but it was especially difficult for the many people in my local community. I represent a constituency that has many features. One is that we have one of the largest communities of Australians who observe the Muslim faith. Australians who have migrated here over a period of five decades from, predominantly, Turkey and other countries of the Middle East came as migrants.
Our most recent arrivals have come as refugees from Iraq and Syria, largely, and they are of the Chaldean, Assyrian and Christian faiths. The adherence to and practice of faith is very important in Calwell. Our mosques and churches, Buddhist and Hindu temples and the Sikh gurdwara are all integral parts of our community life not only at a time of worship but also in other area of our lives, such as welfare, settlement services, family and individual support. Our local interfaith actives allow us all to come together, often to share each other's cultural and religious events, to talk to each other and to get to know each other. Iftar dinners during Ramadan are a long-held tradition in Calwell alongside the sharing of significant Christian events like Easter and Christmas, the Tibetan Buddhist spring festival, the Sri Lankan Buddhist lighting of the lamps, the Vietnamese moon festival and so many more.
This is the successful multicultural interfaith community that I know well and that I represent here in parliament. This is the successful multicultural Australia that we as a country are widely known and admired for. It hasn't always been easy, of course. Managing diversity such as ours in this country does not come easily. It has required community and political leadership to oversee policies implemented over 50 years. These policies have transformed our young country into a dynamic, modern, forward-looking society. While we still lag in our efforts to reconcile fully with our ancient Indigenous inheritance and our First Peoples, we are optimistic that the community and political will and leadership is here now to eventually make it right with our Indigenous Australians.
Events, especially those of and since September 11, remind us always that our community's cohesion, while robust, is also fragile. We can be bold in our initiatives, but at times we have to tread warily. Although we are a successful multicultural community we are not perfect, and our success will always depend on what is in our hearts and what comes out of our mouths. Our words and our thoughts are key to how we shape our relationships and how we interact with our fellow Australians and our broader community, our global community.
So for my community, those of Muslim faith and, indeed, those of the significant Pacific Islander and New Zealand Maori community, the massacre in Christchurch on Friday, 15 March of 50 innocent people while at prayer at the Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre was terrifying. The shock and disbelief they felt was heart wrenching. For our New Zealand Maori community the shock was an unspeakable horror. How could this happen in the sanctity of their homeland? For my local Muslim community the execution of innocent people while at prayer was also an unspeakable horror. Gut wrenching also, however, was the stated purpose of the perpetrator. Fear for the safety of our Muslim community became a matter of concern. Many asked themselves and others: 'Should we be afraid?' But the majority said, 'No.' My local Muslim community understood that their immediate responsibility was to come together and reach out across the Tasman to our brothers and sisters in Christchurch to help and comfort them. There was no time for them to be afraid for themselves. The morning after the horrific attack in Christchurch, I joined federal Labor leader Bill Shorten and my Labor parliamentary colleagues Peter Khalil, the member for Wills; Tim Watts, the member for Gellibrand, who spoke earlier; and the member for Isaacs, our shadow Attorney-General; at the Islamic Council of Victoria. We went there to pay our respects to New Zealand's Muslim community and, at this terrible time, to stand side by side with them alongside members of the Islamic Council of Victoria, who were present.
I want to thank the ICV president Mohamed Mohideen and vice-president Adel Salman for giving us a space to express our sincerest condolences and combined grief for the 50 victims of this dreadful and heinous crime and to honour and pay our respects to their families and friends. Two days after the attack, on Sunday, 17 March, the Islamic Council of Victoria hosted its annual Victorian Mosque Open Day—a day that always sits in my annual calendar. It marks Harmony Day and takes place during Cultural Diversity Week, two of Victoria's largest multicultural celebrations.
I joined my community at the Islamic Community Milli Gorus Meadow Heights mosque. I was very pleased to see a great number of other members of our community come to the mosque on that day to engage with their Muslim neighbours in what is a wonderful initiative that sees mosques open their doors and hearts to the broader Melbourne community. They came on that day to offer their condolences, to leave flowers and to express their own horror at what had happened in New Zealand.
Their solidarity and expression of love on that day was widely felt by all of us in attendance. In fact, our young master of ceremonies, Abdurrahman Turker, who is a second-generation Australian of Turkish heritage, in speaking to us said that they had discussed, prior to making the decision to open the mosque this year, whether it was necessary to participate in this year's Mosque Open Day. He said they felt that the time had finally come, perhaps, when such activities were no longer needed. They felt that we had reached a good safe place in the years post September 11, that our cohesion and goodwill had been restored and things had gone back to normal and that all was good in our community.
The events of Christchurch shattered that thinking. It was a brutal reminder that harm is not too far away, that there are still those amongst us who will commit evil acts against fellow human beings and that we have to always remain vigilant and look after one another. So the Mosque Open Day, on 17 March 2019, was more necessary than ever before. You see, where there are good voices there are also bad voices. We need to keep engaged in dialogue with one another so that the bad voices don't prevail in our public discourse, threatening our cohesion and solidarity as Australians.
I want to pay tribute to my community for their strength and resilience in such extraordinary circumstances. I especially want to pay tribute to them for the assistance they have given the New Zealand Muslim community, with many of my locals travelling there to offer their support and condolences. I want to recognise Zuleyha Keskin, who visited Christchurch immediately after the attack and was there when the first funerals began taking place. She posted this note on social media to inform those who wanted to go, to know what to expect on the ground if they did go to Christchurch. Her first impressions were:
If anyone is wanting to go to Christchurch, a few things to remember:
Remember, this is almost immediately after, almost 24 to 48 hours after. Zuleyha may have been one of the first from my community to travel to Christchurch to assist New Zealand's Muslim community, but she definitely wasn't alone in this outpouring of support. Also visiting in the days after were Kerim Buday and Kazem Ates, from the Millis Gorus Islamic community, and members of the Turkish media.
On Friday, 22 March, a week after the events in Christchurch, the Muslim Calwell community came together for a prayer and vigil outside the Hume Global Learning Centre in the heart of Broadmeadows. I want to thank the Islamic Community Milli Gorus for organising the prayer vigil where we all came together in solidarity with our Christchurch brothers and sisters to express our combined grief through prayer and reflection. Fifty prayer rugs were placed in front of us, one for each of the 50 people lost on that tragic Friday in Christchurch. Their names were placed at the top of each rug. Here I have the rug of one of the victims, 77-year-old Musa Nur Awale, who was murdered while praying in the Al Noor mosque.
I want to thank the following speakers on the night for their stirring words, for the compassion they expressed to the victims and for their commitment in standing in solidarity with the community. I want to thank Clayton Williams, the state president of the Craigieburn Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is a New Zealander, and I had recently handed Clayton an Australian flag on the night he became an Australian citizen at the Hume Global Learning Centre in Craigieburn. He was as much stirred about what had happened in his homeland as he was proud of having become an Australian. I want to thank Nuh Arslantas, the head of religious affairs at the Turkish consulate; Kerim Buday from Islamic Community Milli Gorus; and Assmaa Zeno, the Islamic Community Milli Gorus Meadow Heights youth group president.
We've come together so many times, certainly in the 18 years that I've been here in this parliament, to express our compassion and condolences for the many horrendous murders that have taken place across the globe, often in the name of religion and, in this case, in the name of white supremacists. It's absolutely important that we condemn the words and the language of people whose prime motivation is to harm others, because they are different. Today, in expressing my condolences, I also want to commend the Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the many colleagues who have spoken and will speak in this chamber for leading by example and condemning hate speech. I commend my own community, my local Calwell community, for the amount of work that they do in servicing their neighbours and their friends.
I'd just like to identify my name and the name of my electorate with the words of the member for Gellibrand and the member for Calwell.
The alleged perpetrator of this terrorist attack was from my community, so we were all as devastated as anyone but even more so because he came from our community. On the Monday after the attack there were two events that happened in Grafton that were very important to me and to many members of our community. Firstly, Judy Hackett and a group organised and made 50 hearts made of flowers, and they were laid on the hill at Memorial Park. Then, later that night, there was a vigil that was held at the local Anglican cathedral. It was open to everybody; it was open to people of all faiths and all religions, atheist or agnostic. These were the events that really represented who the true people of Grafton and the Clarence Valley are.
That act in Christchurch was an act of evil. It was an act that was meant to, as all terrorist acts are meant to, divide us. It was an act that wanted to turn religion against religion, race against race and people against people. But it won't succeed, and I see continually, as I saw that day in the community of Grafton and the Clarence Valley and many, many examples since, the goodness of who we are. When people are in need—drought, flood, illness—the community has always acted in a sense of goodwill to each other. Religious teachings and many philosophies always tell us that love will always overcome evil. At the vigil, I prayed for the Islamic and wider community of Christchurch, and I prayed for our community—the community of Grafton and the Clarence Valley. I also prayed for the family of the alleged perpetrator, because the grandmother, the mother and the sister are not guilty of the sins of the grandson, son or brother.
The mayor of the Clarence Valley is also going to visit Christchurch with a book of condolences that has had some very heartfelt things written in it about that terrible, terrible attack. But I just want to say to everyone: while that attack was an act of evil, it does not represent who and what we are. The community of the Clarence Valley and the community of Grafton have shown a lot of acts of love and peace since then, and I pray for all involved.
I would like to rise with all other members in this place to personally add my condolences to the 50 victims—men, women and children—who lost their lives in the Christchurch attacks. You should have been safe in your place of peaceful worship. It should not have happened, especially at the hands of an Australian citizen. This attack was as cowardly as it was horrific, targeting worshippers at their most vulnerable. I especially offer my condolences to those families who have been directly impacted by this unspeakable act. Since the attack, I've been invited to speak at vigils and services within the Islamic community in my electorate. The community is visibly shaken but the dominant theme within the speeches at these events has been how things can be better if we move forward together as one community and one family.
I would like to use the remainder of this speech today to reflect on the social conditions that ensure that extremism and terrorism have no place in our society. What we need to say is: words matter; actions matter; responses matter. What happened in Christchurch targeted some of us but it actually happened to all of us. And, as awful as the perpetrator's actions were, our focus must remain only on helping and supporting those impacted by the attack. Let's look to the good, and let's come together and support not only the community members in Christchurch and New Zealand, more than 2,000 kilometres away, but also our friends and neighbours here in our own communities.
Some of the residents of my electorate have been directly impacted by the Christchurch tragedy. I especially acknowledge my constituents who lost loved ones in the mosque and provide my most sincere condolences to them. When I was at the Green Valley Mosque open day a couple of Sundays ago, a woman who, like me, is a mother and a grandmother relayed to me that her son should have been at the mosque that day for prayers. He was there most Fridays; however, fate intervened. A late work meeting meant that he was running late and was not in the mosque when the firing began. This woman was still visibly shaken by these events. She told me of the anxious wait for a phone call, and the relief she felt when it came from her son and not the police—and then the guilt about those people who got a phone call from the police. So many families were not spared that terrible phone call.
Since the Christchurch attack, members of my community have been subjected to threats and actions that are, at their best, un-Australian and, at their worst, illegal. I will not detail them in this place; however, I do thank the police of the Liverpool City Police Area Command for their leadership and support for those communities that have been affected by these threats. Terrorism relies on fear, relies on mistrust and relies on demonising another. Let us stop all those things now and embrace each other with love and support. Remember the good things that come out of tragedies like this. Remember the police, the paramedics and the bystanders who, in the face of fear and uncertainty, still went towards the danger to assist those who were injured and killed. This is our humanity. This is the way we support each other.
The way we speak matters. Words should be used wisely. Consider carefully what is said. Racism and hate, and whatever other names they go by, are wrong, because we are all the same. Those affected by these attacks are all of us and they are one of us. We all love the same. We all love our families, our children, our parents and our friends. We are all more the same than not. I want to reiterate my condolences to each of the victims, their families and the people of New Zealand.
It is with a very heavy heart that I rise today to join my colleagues in this House to acknowledge the terrible, atrocious crimes committed in Christchurch just over two weeks ago. I remember very clearly being in Newcastle as the news broke and being immediately very fearful for the constituents of mine that were about to go into Friday prayers in the two mosques that I have in Newcastle. I got to talk to many of those men and women the following day. I could only imagine what it felt like fronting up to Friday prayers just half an hour after the news had broken in Australia of the horrendous crimes that had been committed in Christchurch. I could only imagine what it felt like going into prayer with that really hollow and numb feeling and how really terrifying that must have been.
I was so amazingly proud of the way in which the Newcastle community responded and responded really swiftly. The mosque at Mayfield called for a public vigil the following day, Saturday, put it out there on Facebook and asked the community for those who wanted to to join them. I attended that service. It was packed. It was absolutely standing room only inside the mosque, but people spilled out to the common spaces between the mosque and the community areas and out onto the footpaths at the street. The people of Newcastle did what we always do best, and that is come together in times of crisis to lend support. We expressed our profound shock and horror that an Australian citizen, one of our own, had committed profound acts of hatred.
It is difficult to come to terms with the fact that a citizen of ours at some point in his life became radicalised and—I'm not in that head space; I have actually no comprehension—saw fit to walk into not just one but two mosques on that day and murder 50 innocent people, who were doing nothing but following the practices of their faith. As we learnt, as the stories came out, all those 50 people were, of course, unique individuals in this world. All of them had really deep personal stories to tell. For all of us in this House the horror of really listening and being able to put a face, a life and a lived experience to every one of those 50 people who were brutally murdered has been a necessary but difficult and confronting exercise.
We stand united as a parliament against the actions of hatred. I would like to note at this point that the Senate has just in the last 30 minutes censured a certain senator, who remains nameless, who made some particularly vile comments in the wake of the Christchurch attacks. I note that, with multiparty support, that censure motion was successful. Of course, that motion acknowledged, as all of us in this House should, the universal right of peoples in every part of this planet to exercise freedom of thought, conscience and religion and that that right includes freedom for people, either alone or in community with others and in private or in public places, to manifest their religion and belief in worship and in practices. I know there are many of us in this room who have done work around the need to protect those universal rights and freedoms. The Senate has, as I said, very strongly, supported those universal rights. It has called on all Australians to stand united against hate and to publicly, and always, condemn actions and comments that are designed to incite fear and distrust.
I note that the censure motion endorsed a very powerful statement issued by the Iman Hasan Centre following the attacks in Christchurch. I would like to read that statement to the Chamber, because it is a profound set of words:
It is at times like this that we lose hope and doubt humanity. When people of faith come under attack in such a way it shows us how low humanity can fall. However it never ceases to amaze how far humanity can rise after such despicable events.
The statement went on to say:
United as a community we can overcome these barbaric events wherever they happen, divided we become barbaric ourselves. The innocent lives lost around the world should be a sign for all of us to unite against hate.
I could not express more strongly my support for that statement. If there is one lesson, amongst many, to be learned from these vile acts of hatred, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us in the House and in the other place, of civic leaders across our communities and of people of all faiths—and people of no faith—to stand united in calling out acts of hatred. I don't think there is any way to—and nor should we—sugar-coat what has happened in these vile acts or, indeed, many others. That extends to the way we speak both in the parliament and in our communities; that is, in being mindful of the language that is used, in being people who are strong enough to call out filthy, dog-whistling, race based language.
We haven't. We have failed as a community of leaders to always live up to that standard. From time to time despicable things have been said, both within the parliament and outside, that should have been called out. I hope that each and every one of us now has the courage to stand up to race based, dog-whistling politics. It should have no place in the parliament or in our community. We know now, more than ever perhaps, that dog whistling has consequences. It has profound, hurtful consequences and can never be the default position for desperate politicians.
I commend the Senate for taking these actions today. I think it is a very important marker for this parliament that the censure motion was successful. Inflammatory and divisive comments that attribute blame to victims of horrific crime and vilify people on the basis of their race do not reflect the opinions of this parliament. Those sorts of comments don't reflect this place at all. There was astonishing leadership from New Zealand's Prime Minister Ardern, who made very clear, in reaching out to her community in the hours after the vile acts were perpetrated in Christchurch, that the people who were hurt and who were injured were very much part of the New Zealand community—part of the family—and that the only person who didn't belong in the 'us' category was the perpetrator of those vile acts of hatred.
There are many lessons to be learned by the way in which she was able to conduct herself publically. There were the very compassionate approach she took immediately to the survivors and families and her visits to the two mosques in which these attacks were made. But she went on to reach out to schoolchildren who lost friends, neighbours and playmates in those attacks on the mosques. She had time and enough love and compassion for each and every citizen, not just for citizens of New Zealand but in reaching out to us all. Everybody I spoke to in Australia had nothing but praise and buckets of love in return for the Prime Minister of New Zealand for the way in which she conducted herself and the way in which she brought her community together, the way in which she insisted that inclusion, love and compassion would be victorious at the end of the day. That was the glue that bound her community. She understood that and made sure that they were the words that she spoke.
As I said, I have two mosques in my community in Newcastle. I was so profoundly moved to attend the first vigil on the Saturday evening, within 24 hours of the Christchurch attacks. The attendance by the broader Newcastle community was astonishing. People occupied every square centimetre of space in the mosque and outside to stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters. It was also important that I was joined there in speaking by the Catholic and Anglican bishops, Superintendent Brett Greentree of the New South Wales police and by community members of all faiths. They were united and standing in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters, united in their condemnation of vile acts of hatred. We recommitted ourselves to being those leaders who would stand up and speak out when hatred and discriminatory behaviours are perpetrated in our community.
I'd like to pay a special tribute to the leaders of the mosque in Mayfield—Sheik Hamed and Forugh Dorani, the centre's secretary—who have been astonishing leaders in our community, and also to Catholic Bishop Bill Wright, Anglican Bishop Dr Peter Stuart and the Newcastle City Police District superintendent, Brett Greentree, who called out that Islamophobia and hatred have absolutely no place in our community. We all recommitted ourselves to calling that out at every opportunity.
I would also like to acknowledge the mosque in Wallsend in the western part of my electorate, where we gathered again the following day—on the Sunday—under the very careful and embracing watch of all the leadership at the Newcastle Muslim Association and of Sheik Mohammed Khamis. He really articulated that the trauma being experienced on that day at the Wallsend mosque wasn't just for Muslims alone but was affecting us all as a community. I'd like to acknowledge the presence of the Uniting Church's Reverend Neil Smith; my state colleagues, Sonia Hornery and Tim Crackenthorpe, who joined me at the Mayfield and Wallsend mosques; school principals; and thousands of community members who stood united in saying, 'This type of hatred has no place in our community.'
As I said, it was with a very heavy heart going into those but there was the strength that is to be gained from an understanding of our common humanity and the fact that we have all been very brutally reminded of the need to redouble our efforts. That is some good to come from an otherwise horrific attack on our brothers and our sisters. I join with all of our colleagues in the House in condemning those actions and in making sure we're a better society and a better group of leaders in the wake.
'No man is an island entire of itself.' I was reminded of these famous words of John Donne in the context of this tragedy in New Zealand. As he went on to say:
… any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
I wish to join with colleagues in this condolence motion, to express my disgust at the slaughter of so many people in Christchurch, to express my solidarity with the families and the friends of the victims and to restate our friendship with the people of New Zealand.
Any attack on innocent people is appalling, but a violent attack on people going about their peaceful religious observances is abhorrent and, indeed, a manifestation of evil. It has been, and rightly should be, universally condemned. May the deceased rest in peace, may their families and friends be comforted and may our efforts to condemn and prevent these acts of evils be strengthened.
Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, as you know, I represent a vibrant multicultural community in my electorate of Menzies, which has followers of many faiths—indeed, almost every faith, I suspect—as residents. The response of the interfaith community in Manningham is to be commended as they supported, in particular, the members of the local Islamic community—the local mosque in Doncaster. In these tragic circumstances, it's an honour to place on record in the Commonwealth parliament their thoughts and prayers in relation to this situation.
We stand in solidarity with our New Zealand cousins and offer our deepest condolences to the people of New Zealand for this abhorrent act of hatred and violence perpetrated against those of the Islamic faith in Christchurch last month. To the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones: you don't bear your grief alone. We grieve with you, we mourn with you and we stand with you in these difficult and challenging times. We condemn the heinous act of terror—this premeditated act of extreme violence which was committed against a Muslim community of New Zealand and which resulted in the deaths of 50 innocent people and the serious injury of another 48.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous work of the New Zealand police as well as their paramedics. While others were understandably rushing to avoid the violence, they rushed in to confront the danger. Without their heroic efforts, the casualties would have been much higher.
For the terrorist to single out innocent people, peacefully practising their faith in a place of worship, speaks volumes about the evil and hate-filled motives that underpin this cowardly attack. This was an act rooted in extreme right-wing ideology, known for its racism, its bigotry and intolerance—none of which have a place in our society. An attack on people of faith is an attack on all peoples of faith. In fact, it was an unmitigated attack on our collective humanity. This is why we must be united against such hatred, hatred which stands in stark contrast to our values and way of life.
While it is true that the Islamic community of New Zealand will, no doubt, bear the burden of this grief, we know that the pain is shared by Muslims across the globe and, particularly, here in Australia. The hate-inspired acts of one Australian individual are not a reflection of mainstream Australia, nor are the actions of one rogue senator a reflection of our federal parliament. A senator who utilises his privileged position to divide and spur hatred in our community is not someone we want representing this nation or informing debate in this place. For a senator to blame the victims of this unspeakable act of violence rather than right-wing extremism is disgusting and has no place in this country.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Senator Fraser Anning has used his platform to spread fear and further his filthy right-wing agenda. It was only last year that this chamber was united in calling out Senator Anning for his offensive speech belittling the Australian people and inciting hatred towards Australian Muslims. To those who mask racism as freedom of speech: clearly, it's you who have helped create this evil and allowed hate speech to breed. Freedom of speech does not and should not equate to a freedom to spread intolerance and division in our community.
To have witnessed the solidarity of the New Zealand community, under the strong and empathetic leadership of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, gives me hope that extremism will not be tolerated in multicultural societies like New Zealand and Australia. Over the last fortnight I think we've seen Australia at its best. We have seen people of all faiths coming together to say that this is not who we are or who we want to be. As a nation we must continue to cultivate the spirit of kindness and understanding, no matter our differences. After all, it is these values that make us the richly diverse nation that we are, the peace-loving nation that we are so proud to be.
I too rise in support of this motion on the horrendous attacks that took place at the end of last month in Christchurch—on the tragic attacks, on the loss of lives, on this horrendous scenery that we saw on our TVs. I recall watching the TV in my office when bands came across the bottom saying, 'Terrorist attack,' or, 'A shooting in New Zealand'. I kept on reading, and as the news came through I was horrified and shocked to see this horrendous situation, especially because it was in our neighbourhood, in a nation that is so close to Australia. We have the same shared beliefs, the same values, the same democracy. We honour multiculturalism, we support multiculturalism and we are both multicultural countries. So I was in disbelief when I was watching it, as many Australians were. Our hearts go out to all of those families that lost loved ones in such a tragic situation.
The ability to absorb it—it became even more horrifying. We heard that the perpetrator of these horrendous acts was an Australian, someone from our nation, someone from our soil, here. That was a shock and a half. Then you think, 'Where did this hatred come from? Where did these feelings to destroy human lives come from?' It's just so sad to see this whole situation, to see someone who had gotten himself into such a state as to take the lives of innocent people who were praying on a normal Friday morning in their mosque, in a place that was meant to be a safe haven, where they could share their thoughts with God and do something they did on a regular basis. It was absolutely horrendous. As I said, the response was not to be believed.
Can I say that I suppose it was so shocking to us because we associate these things with horrendous acts that take place elsewhere in conflict zones and in politically unstable places. To see it here, I think, affected all of us. When you see people like this particular perpetrator and people that have the same views and opinions, you think that this shouldn't be happening in a nation like Australia. We are a multicultural nation. We're a nation that respects everyone's religious beliefs, political beliefs and freedom for democracy. People died in wars—in World War I, World War II and conflicts all around the world—to sustain the foundations of our democracy, which are: freedom of religion; freedom of political association; the same rights as anyone regardless of your race, colour, religion, et cetera. They're the things we should be honouring continuously in this nation. Think of those diggers that gave their lives in successive wars so we can have these freedoms. People that perhaps call themselves patriots, in terms of some of the statements that we've been hearing, are dishonouring those very people who gave their lives in the wars so we can have our freedom—so we can live freely and pray freely, just as those people were trying to do on that Friday morning at the mosque.
As I said, this was an act of pure hatred—an act of someone who had absorbed himself in vile hatred. Those are the only words that I can use. This is someone that had, perhaps, for whatever reason, absorbed himself in this intense hatred of someone that's a bit different, of someone that may believe in a different God or of someone that had a different religion or a different race. These are the things that we have to try and stamp out here in our nation. To do so, I think we need to be extremely careful in the language that we use as leaders of this nation and as people that have been elected to state parliaments, federal parliaments, ministerial positions or local government. We have to be conscious of the language that we use. We cannot use race and religion for political gain. We cannot do that in a country like Australia. Unfortunately, we've been seeing that for a number of years in this nation and in other places around the world. Even whilst this tragedy was unfolding, we saw a particular person who was elected to high office use language that was absolutely—I'll use the words—despicable and disgusting. To hear the language that he used, from someone who has been elected by the Australian democratic system to represent a nation that has its foundations and pillars of democracy on the freedom of religion and the freedom of participation in our democracy—he did so on the basis of picking up a few votes. How low can a human being be to use a situation like this tragedy that unfolded for the benefit of a few votes to perhaps be elected to the Senate? I'm so pleased by the censure motion moved by Senators Penny Wong and Mathias Cormann in the Senate.
Hopefully, we will get something out of this. What we'll get out of this is that we have to go back to those basic rights and the democracy that those diggers fought for in World War I, World War II and a whole range of conflicts. It was to ensure that we have our freedoms. Regardless of where you've come from, regardless of your religion, regardless of the colour of your skin, Australia is a democratic, free country. We can't fly the flag and say how democratic we are and how inclusive we are on the one hand and on the other hand have politicians using language that is discriminatory or takes out a whole community by using one word. That gives the ability to those haters out there to scramble on that one word and use it for their benefit.
The vast majority of Australians aren't racist. We've welcomed people from every corner of the world. This country has been built on migration and on multiculturalism. Unfortunately there are a few racist voices, and unfortunately they're very loud. Sometimes they seep through and people hear them, where they are packaged up as freedom of speech, as the freedom to have the right to say whatever they wish to say and to have a go at political correctness. Well, political correctness is not just political correctness; we use certain language because it is our duty to make sure that everyone is included, that we are an inclusive society. However, these racist messages do get out there to that very small minority of people, who then scramble on them and use them for their own benefit.
I have three mosques in my electorate, including the Park Holme mosque at Park Holme. They held a vigil on Sunday night after the attack. It was very heartening to see people from all walks of life, from every corner of South Australia, attend to pay their respects. We had every religion represented: Christianity, Buddhism—you name it, they were all there. It was so good to see the community come together to pay their respects and to ensure that we were standing as one with our brothers and sisters in the Muslim community and our brothers and sisters in New Zealand. I also have one of the oldest mosques in Australia in the electorate of Adelaide, which I'm hoping to represent in the next parliament. The little Sturt Street mosque was established in the late 1800s for the Afghani cameleers. Muslims have been part of our society and our nation for many years. I also have the Mahmood Mosque, which serves the Ahmadiyya community in Beverley. They held a vigil as well, which I spoke at, on the Friday one week after the attack. We also had our local mayor, Michael Coxon, and the state member, Joe Szakacs, in attendance.
The attack was a horrendous act, and we have to do all that we can to stamp out the language that is used that allows these people to have a platform. We have to ensure that we stamp it out as quickly and as soon as possible. One good thing that may come out of this is that we, as politicians, get an understanding of the damage that we cause when we use language that is targeted at particular groups.
I start with the words 'Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un': to God we belong and to God we shall return. It is what Muslims say upon the passing of their brethren.
I really struggled to find words in the aftermath of this heinous terrorist attack. I also struggled with many conflicting emotions. I struggled with anger, sadness and despair, but also hope. Sadness at the loss of yet more lives to the scourge of terrorism, regardless of where it comes from, regardless of who the perpetrator is and regardless of what cause the perpetrator wants to communicate. Sadness that 50 innocent people were gunned down, were terrorised, while performing Friday prayers in the sanctity of a mosque. Sadness that it was an Australian who perpetrated this terrorist attack. Sadness for the people of Christchurch, for the people of New Zealand, for this most heinous attack on their society, on their harmony, on their country. Anger, because for years I've been warning about this—and not just me; other members of Muslim communities, other academics have called for more action to be taken against rising white supremacism in this country. Anger, because each time we warned about it we were told to shut up; each time we were told to sit down; each time we were told: 'No, no, no, this is not an issue. The issue is Islamic terrorism.' Each time we were silenced. I know that I got death threats when I raised the issue in public, as an academic, based on my research, of rising white-supremacist and right-wing extremism. I know that friends of mine—other academics, other members of Muslim communities—had death threats and were sent some really horrible things on social media and in the mail for daring, just daring, to say: 'Hang on a minute. This is an issue.' So, yes, I was angry that this had happened.
I felt despair that the things we say, the political and media discourse in Australia, contributed to this. Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. People do not become radicalised to a violent ideology in a vacuum. There is an enabling environment in which people become terrorists. I do not buy the Prime Minister's words yesterday that this person was radicalised overseas. No, I'm sorry: radicalisation doesn't happen that way. Radicalisation happens in an enabling environment where people, like this terrorist, believe that their views are justified because the media and the political discourse keep telling them that they are justified; keep telling them that Muslims are objects of fear, Muslims are a mistake, Muslims are a disease that needs to be vaccinated against and Muslims are a problem that needs a final solution. That's what causes radicalisation. That's what emboldens people who believe in a warped ideology to continue on a pathway of violence and become operative in that violence.
Yes—sadness, anger and despair. But, when I look back on these events and what happened after these events, here's the thing: I don't remember the face of that terrorist. I don't remember his name. I don't remember what he said. I don't remember what he tried to say. I have no memory. I have no space in my mind for a memory of him. I remember the victims, and I remember the ways in which we all came together to condemn this form of terrorism. I remember the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and the way in which she carried herself with such grace, and the compassion that she showed for the people of Christchurch. I remember our leaders standing up yesterday and condemning this act, and I will remember our Senate's motion to censor the disgusting words of somebody who uses a political platform to peddle hate, spread fear and incite violence. I remember standing side by side, shoulder to shoulder, with my Muslim sisters at the West Swan mosque and saying prayers for the dead. I remember the flowers and the cards that were left at mosques and places of worship. I remember the beautiful messages of condolence that I got. I remember the phone calls from my colleagues. And I should make special mention here of the member for Berowra, because his message was the first message that I received on that Friday. It was a message of compassion, of solidarity and of condolence. It was the first message I got and it came from somebody on the opposite side of politics. What does that tell you about the human spirit?
The things that we remember after a terrorist attack, the things that we hold in our hearts after a terrorist attack, are the things that demonstrate and prove that terrorism will never win. It doesn't matter where it comes from, it doesn't matter who perpetrated it; terrorism will never win, because the human spirit will always rise above.
I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the Federation Chamber.
I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 13:05 to 16:00
I rise to honour the life of former senator John Herron, who yesterday in the House of Representatives chamber was generously eulogised, in particular by the Prime Minister. I want to make three points about the late great John Herron. First, he was a fine family man and he often said that his 10 children were by far his greatest achievement. Given all the other things that he did in his life, that was a great tribute to his wife, Jan, and to his children. He was a well-respected—even loved—minister for Indigenous affairs. Given the complexities of that particular portfolio, this was no mean achievement and a great credit to his character. Most notably as minister, he used the Australian Army to lead a sustained upgrading of the then appalling conditions of Indigenous housing in the Northern Territory and elsewhere. He was a wonderful friend of the most admirable character.
I have known John Herron for the best part of a quarter century. I didn't know him as well as I knew other colleagues but certainly he never did anything low or mean. He was always as helpful as he could be to all of his colleagues, and, indeed, to all he came across. Perhaps this was an echo, if you like, of the Hippocratic oath which he took to heart as a doctor. As we all know, it begins, 'First, do no harm'. So many of us, even with the best of intentions, have done much harm. John Herron was one of those figures in this parliament who said what he meant and did what he said. He was always ambitious for the higher things, not simply higher office. We need more people like that in our public life.
I recall, at the very beginning of my own parliamentary life, John took me aside and said, 'Tony, be conscious of this: it's what you don't do, not what you do, that will be your greatest regret in this place.' I very much took that to heart. I've never forgotten it and I've always thought that, if I was in doubt, I should have a go; I should give it a go. I know that has sometimes been to the dismay of my colleagues, but, having spent 25 years in the parliament acting in accordance with John Herron's advice, I don't intend to change.
Also today, in the House of Representatives chamber, we remembered briefly another former member, Peter Coleman, a one-time member for Wentworth. There was no eulogy for Peter Coleman because he was never a federal minister, yet he was a more substantial figure than many who were ministers. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, I will detain this chamber to honour his life and work.
Peter Coleman was a very, very big figure in our intellectual life as well as in our political life. He edited the famous Bulletin magazine for three years. He was a colleague of Donald Horne at that time. For over 20 years, in several stints, he edited Quadrant, then and probably still our foremost magazine of conservative ideas. He enjoyed a golden afternoon as a journalist in the guise of a columnist for The Spectator magazine. But he was a serious writer too, with academic biographies of James Macaulay and Barry Humphries to his credit and many other works. And he edited his son-in-law Peter Coleman's memoirs, which were one of the best-received political memoirs of recent times.
Peter Coleman grew up in the shadow of war and he began his adult life as a man of the Left. But he was on a journey, as so many are. He wasn't just a Liberal in the sense that he belonged to the Liberal Party and represented the party in the parliament; he was a deeply philosophical Liberal, a deeply thoughtful Liberal. I would describe him as a Bourkean Liberal because, while he cherished freedom, he well understood that freedom can only exist in a context of order and respect for tradition. He was an intellectual of the first rank but he was one for whom the life of the mind was always tempered by courtesy, decency and respect.
From 1968 to 1978 he represented Fuller in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, and he became chief secretary in the Willis government before briefly becoming Leader of the Opposition and losing his seat in the 1978 Wranslide. He was for some years the Administrator of Norfolk Island, and then from 1981 to 1987 he represented Wentworth in the federal parliament, following in the illustrious footsteps of Judge Bob Ellicott and being succeeded by my former boss John Hewson before returning to journalism and academic pursuits.
But I was lucky enough to know Peter Coleman as a friend as well as a public figure, and as a mentor as well as a member of parliament. I first met him visiting the family home as a friend of his daughter, Tanya, now Tanya Costello. And, though there was a 30-year difference in our ages, Peter was never condescending. He never looked down on people because they were younger or because they'd read fewer books. Indeed, he did his best to inspire them to be their best selves. And, many years later in the late nineties, along with John Wheeldon and Piers Akerman, he acted as a kind of probity auditor in a campaign I was then waging against the One Nation party, which in those days was even cruder and coarser than the current version. I have to say that I greatly valued his wisdom and his common sense in those days and subsequently.
Peter's life was marked by cultural self-confidence, personal integrity and human decency. We miss people like that. We often think that people like that are much rarer today than they were once. Maybe his times were easier than these but it's hard to avoid the conclusion, in contemplating the life of people like Peter Coleman and John Herron, that their characters were stronger in those days and their convictions deeper. Still, though Peter is gone, we have his life and his memory to console us and to uplift us, and his example to inspire us and to challenge us to be at least as good in our times as he and his colleagues were in theirs.
I too wish to join with colleagues in recognising the wonderful contribution of John Herron to the life of this nation, and to speak on the motion moved originally in the House by the Prime Minister. When John Herron came to this place in 1990, he already had had a very substantial career. He was, as I recall, in his late 50s when he was elected to the parliament as a senator for Queensland—a role he fulfilled for more than a decade. He'd been the chief surgeon at the Mater Hospital Brisbane, he'd been president of the Australian Medical Association's Queensland branch and, indeed, he was also chairman of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Queensland branch of the college of surgeons.
John Herron coming to this place was the mark of a man who had already contributed, if that's all he did in his life, the work of a great Australian. But he came here and continued to contribute as a member of the Senate. He was part of that wonderful influx on our side of politics in 1990. In 1990 people like Peter Costello, the Kemps and others were part of the new membership of the parliament, and John Herron was certainly a very distinguished part of that group.
When I joined them, as an honorary member of the class of 1990, having come here in a by-election in 1991, I soon made friendships with many of those great parliamentarians, including John Herron. I worked with John closely in a number of areas but particularly in the development of family policy, whilst we were in opposition in the early 1990s. Through various meetings and discussions, and through policy forums and the like, those deliberations led to much of the policy, in the social space, that the Howard government adopted and put into operation when we came to government in 1996. John Herron was a great contributor to that process.
The other thing, which is probably forgotten now and which John Herron made a significant contribution to for all members of parliament, was the hours of the parliamentary sittings. John, being a surgeon—and I recall there were a couple of other doctors here at the same time, whose names I can't recall now—was, I know, involved in this. He thought it was absolutely ridiculous that we were sitting until at least 11 o'clock at night on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday nights. Often, particularly towards the end of sessions, we would sit until three or four o'clock in the morning. The first fortnight I came here, I think, we sat until two, three and four o'clock in the morning on about five out of the six or seven nights of that first fortnight. I said to Andrew Peacock, on returning to Melbourne on the plane, 'I'm not sure how I'm going to survive more than a month here.' John Herron and others were keenly aware of the adverse impact this had on the health of members of parliament and, therefore, on their ability to perform their duties, on their relationships with others and, indeed, on how they could humanly perform. Through a campaign that he and others were involved in, the hours of parliamentary sittings were changed to something more reasonable, like they are today, compared to what they were in those very early days.
John was the minister for Indigenous affairs. He had a remarkable interest in Indigenous people in Australia and made a great contribution to that in the Howard government. It's been noted by others, of course, but his involvement in Rwanda and the searing experience of that—and his advocacy for the International Criminal Court—having seen the atrocities being carried out in that nation, was something that stayed with him all his life. He came back and tried to make some contribution not just in terms of national policy here in Australia but also in the way the international community treats such atrocities.
John Herron served for over a decade in the Senate. He also served as the president of the Queensland Liberal Party on two separate occasions and maintained a lifelong interest in the affairs of our side of politics. Along with other great Queenslanders of that time—and I think of the late Warwick Parer, for example—these were men who brought a substantial contribution to the parliament from their previous lives, whether it was in business or, in John Herron's case, in medicine and surgery in particular. They were gentlemen. They were people who had strong views but they were also very civil in the way in which they conducted themselves. They were well liked all across the parliament, regardless of one's political persuasion. That provides a great role model to all of us as to how we conduct ourselves: passionate about issues but civil in the way in which we reach out to each other on different issues.
I'm delighted to be able to say these few words about the late John Herron: a remarkable gentleman, a great parliamentarian and a wonderful Australian. To Jan and to all his family—particularly Willie, who I knew while she was working with John Howard under the Howard government—I extend my condolences. May he rest in peace.
I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. I ask all present to do so.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the Federation Chamber.
by leave—I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
It was a privilege to be part of this committee. I thank: the member for McMillan, as chair; the hardworking secretariat; those who made submissions and appeared before the committee; and of course my fellow committee members for their combined efforts in bringing this valuable report, Living on the edge: inquiry into intergenerational welfare dependence, to fruition.
Intergenerational poverty is a wicked problem without simple solutions. Disadvantage has become entrenched and breaking vulnerable Australians out of the path of dependence is not easy. For the most disadvantaged Australians, not only do opportunities first need to exist but people need to be supported so that those opportunities can fall within their grasp. Supporting Australians to escape the intergenerational poverty trap should be seen, I believe, as an investment, not a cost.
But, as with any investment, we need to ensure that Australians receive a social return on their investment. To ensure this, we need to adopt a wraparound support program that works. The term 'wraparound' generally means a holistic approach that does not look at individual, singular interventions. It looks at the whole person and the whole circumstance around them and their whole community. For example, access to better medical care to ensure our disadvantaged Australians are fit and healthy for work will not be enough if those people have no access to affordable housing or, indeed, public transport, or if they are trapped in homes where domestic violence prevails.
This is why the first recommendation of the report is so important; namely, that the Australian government needs:
… to prioritise funding for place-based and wrap-around services that can demonstrate evidence of successful programs for people living with entrenched disadvantage.
We know what works. We don't need to debate this anymore. The social services sector has been working on these issues for decades now, which leads me to a second but equally important recommendation of this report—recommendation 4. I will quote it in full:
The Committee recommends that funding arrangements for welfare-related programs are reviewed, with a view to avoiding short-term funding cycles. Three to five year agreements, with annual extensions subject to meeting agreed performance measures, would assist with funding certainty, while ensuring progress and satisfactory outcomes are achieved.
In plainer English, we need to stop chop-changing programs all the time. We have a program that works really well, and then we get rid of it after three years because it's a Labor program. Then we have a change in government and we have a program that works really well. Why did we get rid of it? Because it was branded as a Liberal program. We know what works; we need to allow continuity. These problems are intergenerational; they have been there for a very long time. We are not going to turn around the problem in a mere two or three years.
Even a modicum of better planning from state and federal governments will avoid these unnecessary valleys of death. I worked in social services for a number of years, in the youth sector. The best staff leave when they know a program is ending. It then takes an extraordinary period of time to ramp up for a new program, and to try to get the staff. In the meantime, communities are left with no support. Then, when new supports come in, they're expected to embrace those new employees, who are working on an entirely different program with a new set of parameters. What happens is, particularly in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, there is an overwhelming feeling of distrust—naturally there's a feeling of distrust—that this program, too, will end and that they will be in the same circumstances, or perhaps worse, when they end.
My time is limited in here, and I don't wish to take up too much of the Federation Chamber's time, but I will say this: we often, in this place, hear speeches where people say, 'People just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.' But what do you do when you don't have any boots? One of the greatest privileges of my life was working in the youth sector. I remember a young person—we only found him by happenstance—who had a little two-man tent; he was camped out behind one of our jobactive organisations. We found this young man, who was homeless, and we were able to support him into housing and then into education and employment. If you are 18 years of age, you can't read and you have nowhere to live, there is no point being told, 'Pull yourself up by your bootstraps,' if you don't even have a pair of boots.
I rise to speak on this incredibly important issue of intergenerational welfare. Now, I'm no expert on social services, I'm no expert on the best way to deal with this, but I think I can consider myself an expert on my own seat: it's the area I was born in; I've lived there most of my adult life; I went to school there; and I was raised there. I know these people and their families and can I say—and I've said this before—all levels of government are failing a generation of Australians.
Intergenerational welfare dependence is an incredibly difficult social issue to address. There is no silver bullet, there is no magic wand, there is no easy way to address these types of social challenges, and we must attack it from all directions and with every weapon in the armoury. In my region, we have taken the tough decision to roll out the cashless debit card. I know there are individuals and there are members and senators in this house who vehemently disagree with that rollout, and I accept their right to have that view and to put that view forward. But my electorate, the people that I represent, want change; they want us to act, and they want us to do everything we possibly can to make a difference in the lives of people who find themselves in really difficult circumstances.
I know of families where the grandparents, the parents and the children have never worked. They know no-one in their family to have gotten up on time to go to work, to perform the basics of what is a regular working life for most Australians. That is something which is incredibly difficult (a) to accept and (b) to act on. We have made the tough decision to roll out the cashless debit card, but, as I've said, it is not a magic bullet. The cashless debit card quarantines 80 per cent of a social service payment onto an EFTPOS card, and that EFTPOS card cannot be used for the purchase of alcohol or the purchase of gambling products; it limits the amount of cash that can be used for the purchase of illicit substances. I acknowledge that it can be inconvenient for some who don't have those particular issues, but we are trying to make a difference in my electorate. We are trying to make a difference.
Hand-in-hand with the cashless debit card, we have announced the Hinkler Regional Deal, which is looking to address an increase in our regional economy, to provide more local jobs. In fact, in the budget overnight, $173 million was committed to the Hinkler Regional Deal to drive our local economy into the future. This is a game changer for our region, but I have literally thousands of individuals who are multigenerational welfare dependent people, and we need to act in their interest, no matter how difficult it may be in a policy sense.
We have any number of services. In fact, when we did the review as part of the CDC, we found there were more than 60 support services throughout my electorate that were funded by the federal government. We need to coordinate those services in a better way. We have a million dollars committed for additional services where needed and for an identified need. We are currently in the midst of the cashless debit card rollout. There are some 3,000 individuals who have been contacted who have been issued a card or have activated them. There are only around approximately 1,500 who have had their payments transferred onto the card. We have shopfronts in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay; we have a 1300 number. Can I say that the targeted cohort—those who are 35 and under—are obviously very capable with online services, smartphones and modern technology, and they are managing the rollout, to be honest, with ease. This is a tough policy but a necessary one.
In terms of other options, we also run a program called Employment First Aid. Can I recommend this to anyone who is listening to this broadcast. Employment First Aid is run by an organisation called IMPACT Community Services, and it is a post-employment support service. What we've found is that any number of people who have come from a difficult background, who have been welfare dependent for a long time, struggle when they find themselves in the workplace. In fact, they don't last very long at work at all. Employment First Aid has been incredibly successful. Employers utilise the service for individuals who they think have difficulties or who are struggling at work. They've managed to keep many of those employees in the workplace, and, as we all know, as time continues—the longer you are in that job—the more likely you are to stay there. So I congratulate IMPACT Community Services on the work that they are doing.
We have been the recipients of some of the apprentice trials in the last two weeks. We have 19 young people who have been successful in apprenticeships with support from the federal government's pilot program. I'm very pleased to say that the youth unemployment rate, while still unacceptably high, in the last quarter of recorded statistics before Christmas dropped from the totally unacceptable number of 27.8 per cent to under 20 per cent in just one term—in just one quarter. I'm hopeful that that is a trend and not an anomaly. Clearly it is a combination of all circumstances, including local business looking for more staff, including the work that we are doing in training people and including the work of Employment First Aid and the cashless debit card. We are throwing everything we can at this very, very difficult issue. We are making the tough but necessary decisions.
You cannot simply train for training's sake. You must train for employment that is available. It is no good turning out 4,000 baristas when you only have 40 positions. We must ensure that whatever we do at a federal level, whatever support we provide, is for real work, real training, real skills and real jobs. That has certainly been the focus of what I've been doing as a federal member in conjunction with our local RDA, our councils and, of course, our state members. It's important that we work together on this tough challenge. Once again, I acknowledge and accept that there are people who don't like what we are doing, but it is the only option on the table. There are no other policies which have been put forward. The cashless debit card trial in the other trial sites has been, in my view, very successful. I look forward to it being successful in the electorate of Hinkler between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay.
Once again: we need more employment, and to do that we must have a strong regional economy and we must have strength in our local businesses. Most importantly, they must be confident. I'm a former local businessperson myself—I'm sure like you, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks. I was in business for over 15 years in a number of different areas, including a small business that I started originally with just me and a truck. That ended up at 15 staff running across the east coast, and when the mining boom closed, when all sorts of problems broke out across the world, unfortunately it meant that we lost people as well. It's to my great regret that I had to reduce staffing numbers. I sold on that business when I was elected to this place because, quite simply, it was a conflict in all sorts of places, and I'm very pleased to say that the business is still there and still going well and that my former staff are still employed and adding to the local economy.
We need more of those. There are some 12,000-plus businesses who, overnight, will receive the $30,000 instant asset write-off. That might not mean much to those individuals who find themselves in tough circumstances, but what I know as a former business owner is that the fact that I could purchase capital items, write them off in the year of purchase and have that cash flow back in my business gave me confidence, and the stronger the bottom line, the more likely it was I would look to expand and employ more people. Right now we need to ensure that small business, in particular, is confident, that small business is looking to extend and employ, and that small business is willing to take the risk on one of our young people, on one of those people who are looking for a job, on one of those individuals who have been through our training courses and done everything they possibly can to get work. We need business to be part of that response and part of that solution.
I note the report itself on intergenerational welfare dependence. I am preaching to the converted in this room, I believe. Looking around the room, I know we are all interested in ensuring that we get rid of intergenerational welfare dependence. The member for Moreton has just entered the room, and I know this is something of great interest to him. We have looked at these issues across the board for some time. We've looked at why it is not a solution for our local people to go and work on local farms when work is there. All of these challenges are very difficult to address. I have some 4,000 backpackers across the electorate at peak season who are working full time in horticulture. Why can't we use our local workforce? These challenges are real. They've been around for quite some time. But we are acting. I acknowledge that not everyone accepts the actions we have taken, but they are actions nonetheless, and I would rather do something than do nothing.
It is very easy for a member of parliament to sit around drinking cups of tea in their office—in fact, it's incredibly easy—but to get out and do tough things, to convince your community, to bring them with you, to get all levels of government on board takes a long time and is incredibly difficult. So I thank them for their support in terms of the cashless debit card rollout. I think it will be successful. We continue to drive a stronger economy, particularly in the regional areas. The Hinkler Regional Deal, in my view, is a game-changer for our people—$173 million. I look forward to its success, and I certainly look forward to the election so we can continue this great work.
I rise to speak to the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence. I thank the member for McMillan for so ably and sensitively chairing the committee. I thank my fellow committee members for their consideration and support, and I especially thank the member for Cunningham for her wisdom, her careful and selective questionings and her counsel throughout the committee.
Welfare payments are a vitally important part of the social compact. They must be adequate. Whilst we rightly view them as a social safety net protecting people when vulnerable, they can also be seen as an important investment helping people access important opportunities. That is why I am pleased that the inquiry's name did not have an impact on the outcomes of this committee. The real issue, of course—as indicated in the body of the report and, I'm pleased to say, in the recommendations—is that of intergenerational disadvantage. For many people facing profound disadvantage, the provision of social security payments are, and must be, a lifeline which mean that they and their children have the basics of life but also have the ability to reach out and grab the opportunities necessary to break that cycle of disadvantage.
Many people say, 'You just need to pull yourself up by your boot straps, get a job, get moving'. But it's very hard to do that if you have challenging children and your only concern is making sure they get to school and stay at school. It's hard if you are worried about getting enough food and have to walk around looking for food parcels to make sure your children are fed. It's hard if you have trouble paying for a place to live or if you are homeless or dealing with sickness in the family. That's why I am pleased that the recommendations of this report do go to that very sensitive issue of intergenerational disadvantage.
The recommendations include the need for place based programs that are driven by and accepted by the communities involved, programs that actually reflect an understanding of who the people are that require these initiatives and what their local circumstances are. The recommendations call for wraparound services—services that are coordinated, meaningful, localised and not replicated or unnecessary. Targeted, wraparound support services are essential in engaging children and their families where barriers to education and employment are complex.
I have perfect examples of such situations in my own seat of Batman. Families where there is domestic violence, families where there are complex health issues and families where there might be drug related issues require a great deal of support beyond social security payments. They require the support of experts who know how to help these families through, around and over these barriers so that the children can get access, as I've said, to the opportunities of education and help when they need it. We need social security payments that are adequate and provide the necessary resources to actually be able to live as well as pursue opportunities for a better life.
The report highlights the importance of transition phases that occur in each person's life, and each of these are individual and must be individually tailored. One thing we learned from the inquiry is that one answer or one intervention simply does not meet everybody's needs. They must be individualised. They must be tailored. This approach is referred to as the 'life course approach', and there were many examples where this has worked from many wonderful people who presented to our inquiry.
The report discusses the need to provide targeted and early intervention to support people through life's changes in order to prevent entrenched disadvantage. It considers early intervention programs that should target the following phases of life: prenatal and parenthood. It's astounding to see the success of such programs that helped new mums right through their pregnancy, through the early stages of parenthood and on to when their children are transitioning to school. The results have been astounding—simply sitting with parents and helping them read to their children, understanding healthy living during pregnancy and understanding that having a connection and being a good parent is vitally important to breaking that cycle of disadvantage. This is something that, I guess, as policymakers, we may not see as important but was highlighted over and over again in the inquiry.
It is the transition to education, including preschool, primary and secondary; through to year 12, TAFE and tertiary; and then, of course, on to employment. It is something as simple as having somebody sit in a household and read to children after school or at any time they can, because the parents are not able to do that. Simple interventions like that can mean a world of difference, and we should be prepared to be flexible enough in the provision of our programs to make sure that such interventions are available.
Finally, the importance of collecting data for evaluation and effectiveness of programs is highlighted in the recommendations. Collecting data shows us where people who need our services are located. There were some very stark examples of how important data is. There are nearly a dozen postcodes in this country where interventions are needed. We can put our finger on them on a map and say, 'That is where we need to focus.' We can take some of those children from those families by the hands, so obvious it is to indicate to us where these children are at risk of being in this cycle of disadvantage, and we can lead them to a better life. It is the data and the evaluation of these programs that shows us that.
On behalf of the committee, I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank the inquiry participants and their representatives for their willingness to share difficult personal experiences of entrenched disadvantage. I must admit there was some reluctance on behalf of many of the organisations to present to the committee but I am pleased to say that they did so, with great vigour, with great interest and with great compassion, and I think now they would be very happy with the recommendations thanks to their submissions.
It became clear during the inquiry that Australian communities have people that are doing it really tough, particularly in remote and regional areas of Australia. In many instances they are single mothers and their children. I thank all of them for their stories and I thank all of the people who came forward with their submissions. I recommend this report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Al-Salaam Alaikum. I join my colleagues from both sides of this parliament in mourning the tragic and senseless murder of 50 people—mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters—who were tragically attacked in their place of worship, cut down while they came together for Friday prayers at that most sacred of times. This was an act of terrorism borne out of white nationalism. It was an act of hatred and it was an act of cowardice, all the worse for being committed by a person who was welcomed into a place of worship as a brother, who then responded with bullets of hatred.
I mourn with the people of New Zealand and, particularly, New Zealand's Islamic community. I stand in solidarity with the Muslim community in New Zealand and with Muslim people everywhere, especially in my electorate of Moreton. I'm not Muslim, but I am your brother. The senseless, horrific act that took the lives of innocents as they were at their most pure and most vulnerable has shocked the world and shocked my own community. It has terrified children. Like every decent Australian, I abhor these acts of extremist violence—this gutless terrorism. I reject the extreme right-wing ideology, the hatred and the intolerance, the dog-whistling and the dog trumpets that led to these acts of extremist violence. I stand with the Moreton community in sharing those long-held Australian values of inclusion, acceptance, respect, a belief in equality, the rejection of racism, the rejection of prejudice, the rejection of division. These are the values that I cherish, that we cherish, that make our community stronger.
Standing united against hatred not only makes us stronger; it makes the losers, the loners and the loonies weaker. Fanning prejudice and discrimination has never, ever made Australians safer. No group within our community is ever immune to the effects of hatred—not even, you could argue, the poor, miserable haters themselves. So it is the responsibility of all of us to stand together against hatred in all its forms and embrace tolerance, embrace acceptance and honour our shared humanity. To those who seek to divide us, especially in the lead-up to this federal election, I say this: you will not win. We as a community are stronger than anyone seeking to divide us. Modern Australia will prevail. That monocultural Australia you talk of never, ever existed. Love is greater than hate. Respect and hope are greater than fear. May they rest in peace.
I, too, rise, as so many colleagues have done across both sides of the chamber, to endorse the words and sentiments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in extending this nation's condolence to those who have suffered so terribly from the Christchurch attacks, and also to offer our solidarity and ongoing support to communities and the nation as it seeks to rebuild from that time.
I come from Wollongong. We always pride ourselves on how diverse we are. We are a very diverse community—diverse in the ethnic backgrounds that people have come from, the languages that they speak, the faiths that they practice and the countries that they came from. Sometimes, like many in this place, we like to say that our particular patch is the beacon of diversity and that it's unique in some way. But, realistically, I think that is a common story through the vast majority of Australia. Through the suburbs of cities and towns like mine in Wollongong, to more rural, smaller places, our story now is one of communities that are very diverse.
I think the experience that so many of my colleagues—and I use the term in this debate referring to all members, I'm sure, of the House—take out of that as we go around our communities is that there's something we celebrate and love about that diversity. We talk about the music, the food, the cultural experiences and the economic and business benefits—the way it takes us out into the world and creates connections. We talk about all those things as wonderful, and they are, but at the heart of it what we all see is that people are people. People love their families and they want the best for their kids. They love their communities and they'll often volunteer in all sorts of ways. If something terrible happens—if there's fire or flood, an unemployment event or something—people rally around. Nobody particularly cares what faith they are or from what ethnic background they are; people just rally around together. I think that is the story across our nation. That's certainly my experience in Wollongong. I find it baffling—incomprehensible—that some people born and raised here, as in the case of this Australian terrorist, could have such a mean, shrivelled heart that they could hate in the way they do.
I find it incomprehensible but I also acknowledge it's a reality, and that's why I think the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are so important in saying very clearly as a nation: 'This is not us. These are not the values that we adhere to, and we will not stand by silently while other Australians say or do things that are divisive and hateful. It is not acceptable, and we will call it out.'
Today I extend my sympathies to, and share the grief of, the Muslim community of Christchurch as they get on with their lives without so many people who were loved parts of those lives. I acknowledge the whole New Zealand population and the task of work they have ahead of them. I particularly want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. I think her capacity to capture the sentiment of sorrow but also determination was so powerful. As she said:
Let us acknowledge their grief as they do.
Let's support them as they gather again for worship.
We are one. They are us.
I think that's how we feel about New Zealand too.
I want to report to the Chamber that there was a lot of activity in my local area in the week or so following this terrible terrorist attack. There was a candlelight vigil on the Saturday at the Omar Mosque at Gwynneville. About 200 people attended to pay respect to and show solidarity with the local Muslim community. Andrew Pearson of the Illawarra Mercury reported it beautifully. He said:
Undeterred by heavy downpours of rain, attendees—young and old, of faith and not—held candles as they stood in silence outside the Foley Street mosque.
… … …
'We are shocked and saddened by this act of violence, terrorism by this individual, particularly when the innocent people were worshipping in the mosque,'
They were the words of the Omar Mosque chairman, Munir Hussain.
I couldn't be there that night, but Dr Hussain and the mosque are very well known to me. I've visited on many occasions and talked to them about many issues. I was really pleased to see the strength of the community support that was shown to them. Dr Hussain—that night and on other occasions—called on the government to act on Islamophobia, and I think that is a very reasonable call to make. He also expressed his appreciation for people who attended the event.
On the following Monday night there was a vigil in Wollongong's Crown Street mall, which was organised by Illawarra People for Peace. It is quite a long-established, cross-denominational group that works for peace. Many hundreds of locals attended this vigil to honour the victims of Christchurch. There were people from all walks of life. Community leaders and ordinary citizens, and people of many faiths and no faith, young and old, joined together to show their determination that love, tolerance and community would triumph over hatred and division. Reverend Geoff Flynn of the Wesley Church, in his address, said:
What a wonderful diverse community that has gathered. I hope this will be a practical experience for you for building peace in the Illawarra.
Imam Sheikh Abdul Rahman Fattah and the Omar Mosque chairman, Munir Hussain, also addressed the crowd. They expressed their view that the large turnout was proof that there were so many people who really cared for each other, and pointed out the responsibility we all have to call out racism and intolerance whenever we see it. Sheikh Rahman said:
Ibrahim, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed … they came to bring peace to the people, no prophet or messenger came to the people and said kill each other. Terrorists have no nationality, they can affect any one of us.
Reverend Miao You, from the Nan Tien Temple, also spoke of the power of love and shared a prayer for peace. There were some moving musical contributions to the event, with the traditional Maori song 'Pokarekare Ana' performed by Goknur Shanal and a number of songs performed by the Union Choir. I want simply to say that I don't think my community was unique. I know they're wonderful, and I think they reflect communities all around this nation in our determination to extend sympathy and support and to commit to calling out hatred whenever and wherever we see it.
I rise to offer my condolences after what was an abhorrent act, whatever prism you look at it through. Vile hatred is intolerable. I stand with every Australian who is appalled by the actions of a single hate-filled individual. It is incomprehensible, as a father, to assess the loss, the damage that was done. Can you imagine your own child being in that situation? Between my partner and I, we have five children. To lose one of them would be devastating—to have that young life taken away. It's moments like this when we need to make a stand, when we need to say that enough is enough. That's what I intend to do today. This is enough. This is enough to bring me to my feet.
Soon after the attack, the gates of one of my local mosques in the electorate of Wright, a mosque of the Muslim Ahmadiyya community, were rammed by a local, in another act of hatred. So, as soon as I was able to return to my electorate, I went and visited the imam. I sat with him and said: 'We have to stand together. We have to stand together so our community sees that I am supporting you.' There are those in our community who are filled with a lack of understanding of the Muslim beliefs, and they are of an opinion that—well, I don't want to try and pretend what some people would think. But, the more you get to understand Muslim people, the more compassion you see they have. The more time you spend with them, the more you get a sense of how much they love this country, how much they are integrated into our communities. They are our engineers, our doctors, our pharmacists. To those who look to cast aspersions on them: imagine what our lives would be if they were not in our community.
So I stand today to condemn those acts and to offer my condolences to the families, whose pain and loss I cannot comprehend. As a Catholic, in my church, before I take communion, we offer each other a sign of peace. I just ask that, as a nation, we offer each other a sign of peace.
I rise to echo the remarks of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other members whom I've heard speak throughout this debate and to extend my condolences to the families of those whose lives were lost in New Zealand and indeed the whole of the New Zealand community, given the shock that this has caused throughout the country. It's fresh and it's raw. It was only a couple of weeks ago, and it's certainly reverberating still through my community—very much so. I attended, on the Sunday after the terrible shootings in Christchurch, two mosques in my electorate. There are many mosques in my electorate. Around 10 per cent of people in my electorate are of the Islamic faith, and from various parts of the Islamic world. I'd booked to do that many weeks before, through the Islamic Council of Victoria's annual open day. I went last year to the Dandenong mosque and had a wonderful reception and time, and I'd booked this year to go to the Hallam and Doveton mosques. This was on the very day when you could have understood if the Islamic community had closed their doors and retreated, back into tribe, where they may have felt safe. They did exactly the opposite and threw open their doors to the community.
At both of the mosques were lovely events, particularly at the Hallam mosque. It's a large mosque and a mosque that prides itself on calling itself the Hallam mosque—not the Afghan mosque or the Bosnian mosque or any other nationality. It is a mosque where people from all over the Islamic world, in that Islamic tradition, can go and worship. A significant number of visitors there were from the surrounding Christian communities. There were piles and piles of flowers as people from across south-east Melbourne came to express their sympathy. The conversations were wonderful.
The context, of course, for that visit did change with the events in Christchurch. I can't imagine, and other members have spoken of this, the pain and the shock and the suffering on hearing that family members and friends had lost their lives. The youngest victim, Mucad Ibrahim, was only three. I think any parent would admit that's a thought—it's our greatest fear—that we hope never happens. Our deepest fear is to lose a child. The pain that must be felt by those parents, still, I cannot conceive.
The brutality and inhumanity stunned everyone, particularly in Australia. I think this was for two reasons. Of course it's because the terrorist was an Australian, and I'll reflect on that in a moment, but it's also because New Zealanders are our closest cousins. They're just like us. Seeing those images on television—that could have been my community. They were people who were there as students, who were there as visitors, who'd come as refugees, who'd come as business skilled migrants, from every part of the world, just there to worship on Friday in their tradition. That could be, absolutely, my community. They're just as diverse as we're diverse. The murderer who did this is Australian, and that's difficult for us to comprehend. It's difficult to comprehend that scale of atrocity anywhere, but that this evil could have grown amongst us—all humans, to some degree, are a product of their culture. It's the nature/nurture dichotomy, I suppose.
I've been back to Friday prayers, on the last two Fridays, in different mosques and spoken to people. I'd like to make a couple of remarks on how Australians of Islamic faith feel, from my conversations, and record that dreadful worry, that whispered, dreadful fear: 'That could have been me. That could have been my family. Can this happen here? Are we safe? Are my children safe?' There is no simple, adequate answer to that fear. There is not.
The police were there, and they will play their part. The community, of course, has an enormous part to play. There are things we can do with security and so on and so forth to make sure this doesn't happen. But, also, parents in the broader community need to reassure children that they are safe, that they are loved and that they have a future in this country just like anyone else. As I've heard other members say, including those opposite, that leadership signal of simply turning up is important, more than ever. When I looked around the room, though, I saw Australia. The human diversity present in the Hallam mosque is modern Australia. Indeed, multicultural Australia is modern Australia.
I said earlier that this was an act of terror. It was. It was industrial-scale slaughter designed to cause fear, spread hate and shift power. But it would insult the memory of those who died to say that this was just some lone act of terror. Sure, the guy was acting alone but he existed in a context. It was fuelled by a noxious, far-right political ideology of white supremacism and hate speech. The Leader of the Opposition spoke powerfully soon after and observed that not all right-wing extremist hate speech ends in violence but all such violence starts in hate speech, which is correct and not new knowledge.
I've spoken many times on this debate about racist hate speech and 18C. It's galvanised my community. We had a public meeting of almost 1,000 people in Springvale. There are reasons for Australia's laws against racist hate speech. When you're told you're less than human, that you're vermin, that you're a disease, it's not just freedom of speech; it's brutal. It does real and immeasurable psychological harm. Words have real consequences and plant the seeds for violence. Of course, I don't believe any member of this parliament who prosecuted that debate in any way meant this to happen or had any concept that this could be part of the context in which these things are caused and grown. I do believe that conservative politicians who should know better have spent years trying to weaken Australia's Racial Discrimination Act, which restricts hate speech. I thank leaders from the Islamic community, people here who worked hard with Labor to stop this from happening.
I will just note one thing. It may not be real in many electorates, and I accept that we're all different. When that debate was on, people kept coming into my office, or calling me—it was the same for the member for Hotham, for the member for Isaacs and for the member for Holt in our part of Melbourne—saying that there was nonsense going on in the street. Women were having their headscarves ripped off while that debate was happening. Verbal abuse was enabled and legitimised because of the leadership signal that was sent by that debate in this parliament.
It wasn't a fringe element of the most conservative right-wing government MPs or the nutters from the crossbench. It got fuelled and, eventually, led by the Prime Minister of this country, Prime Minister Turnbull. That sent the leadership signal that somehow this was a debate that we should have outside the IPA's whiteboards or wherever they dream up this nonsense. I really hope that that stupid political debate died with the events in Christchurch on that Friday, and that we'll hear no more of it—or from the Hansons of the world—that we can't make laws against racist hate speech.
There was a lot asked about Senator Anning. I didn't mean to mention his name—I try not to legitimise him by saying his name—but a lot of people were asking about him. I just say simply that that senator is only in this parliament because people voted for One Nation. That is the only reason that he is in this parliament. I urge the government, and I urge the Prime Minister, to do the right thing and put One Nation last on their how-to-vote cards. It's that simple. John Howard did; they should too.
In closing, I'd say that at times like this, as the Leader of the Opposition has said so powerfully, nations have choices. We can retreat inward to tribes and to cultures, to be with people like ourselves and perhaps feel safe. Or we can open our doors, engage and recommit to building a tolerant, harmonious multicultural Australia. I'm pleased by the speeches, not just on our side but from those opposite, that by words at least that's the direction we're heading in. But I believe that we have a long way to go.
I rise today to express my deep condolences to those who were injured and to the families and friends of those who lost their lives as a result of the horrific, right-wing-extremist terror attack in Christchurch on 15 March during their peaceful Friday prayers. All Australians stand with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the people of New Zealand as they process their shock and grief.
In the wake of this attack on Christchurch's mosques that left 50 people dead, Prime Minister Ardern has exemplified what a strong leader looks like in the face of tragedy, with compassion and empathy at her core. Rather than falling into the trap of recriminations and anger, Prime Minister Ardern focused on the victims and survivors, on the people of Christchurch and on supporting the Muslim community of New Zealand. Prime Minister Ardern said that the victims had chosen to make New Zealand their home. 'They are us,' she said, 'The person who has perpetuated this violence is not. They are us.'
With these three words Prime Minister Ardern set the tone for the national and global conversation about this tragic terrorist incident. I wrote to Prime Minister Ardern to applaud her rejection of the extremist ideology behind the attacks, which she noted has no place in New Zealand society. And neither has it a place here in Australia. It takes great courage to lead with such awareness and reverence for diversity, kindness and compassion, noting that these are qualities for which New Zealanders are renowned. It was moving to see spontaneous expressions of support for the Muslim community in Christchurch—in particular, the group of young people performing the haka to commemorate a school friend who lost his life in the attacks.
Prime Minister Ardern continues to lead with extraordinary empathy and influence on the global political stage in such a positive way. Yet the attacks in Christchurch illustrate just a small fragment of a global rise not only in anti-Muslim prejudice but prejudice against vulnerable groups, based on their religious, ethnic or political identity. Extremism in all its forms is repugnant and is anything but benign. The millions of Muslims who have died, who have been displaced or who have been put in detention or intimidated in other ways have not been treated this way only as part of a religious conflict. This is also about how some nation-states treat their minorities. Christians are oppressed in China, Pakistan and Indonesia, while France and Germany reported an alarming rise in anti-Semitism last year. This is in a climate of rising anti-Semitism in Australia, where there has been a 59 per cent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the past year. There has also been a reported rise in anti-Muslim attitudes.
To effectively challenge this threat requires an essential shift towards inclusion rather than division. Everyone has a right to their view but it is our job as parliamentarians to find common ground—to unite rather than to divide. This is the strength of our democracy. Certainly, divisive politics should have no place in Australia. I want to see an end to the polarising rhetoric that leverages unwarranted fear. It is our job to create a unified, safe and prosperous society that is capable of healthy, rigorous but respectful debate.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to incite hatred or violence or abuse. Fundamental human rights issues should not be about whether you are on the Left or the Right side of politics. It is about what is intrinsically and morally right. It is about the human experience.
The strength of a nation lies in how well we treat all of our citizens and residents. With the decisions we make, we collectively nurture and define the character of our nation. Prime Minister Ardern has articulated the true character of New Zealand, emphasising its diverse and harmonious nature. Australians stand with the people of New Zealand as part of their process of healing. They are us.
I join colleagues in speaking to this condolence motion. For the people who have died in New Zealand I am deeply saddened. To their families and friends: I offer my profound condolences. To those injured: I wish them a full recovery. To the survivors of the shootings: my words cannot erase your horrific experience or the scars that you will carry throughout your life but I hope that they provide some comfort to you. Yesterday we heard statements in the House from both the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. They spoke for all Australians, and I believe that their words overwhelmingly captured the sentiments of our nation.
This is a time when words matter. They matter to the Muslim community and they matter to those with evil thoughts and evil intent. As with the Port Arthur killings, the Twin Towers attack and the Bali bombings, the New Zealand mosque killings will be embedded in my memory. The image of defenceless people without warning facing a violent death is not something that I can easily dismiss. These were people going about their daily lives like all of us do every day. Their lives were ended suddenly, their dreams cut midstream, their families left with emptiness that only those who have suddenly had a loved one taken from them will ever understand. Their lives were ended not by accident but deliberately by a person whom they had probably never met and whom they had never caused harm to. This was a deranged person who was driven by prejudice and racism.
Prejudice and racism have led to discrimination and persecution of people for as long as mankind has lived. History is filled with many such examples. But the sadistic killing of innocent people which occurred in Christchurch takes prejudice and racism to a level that most people—even racists—find abhorrent. For that reason, the perpetrator has failed in his ultimate cause and managed to unite people more so than to divide them. He has highlighted that, regardless of our differences, we have much more in common with each other than that which divides us.
The Christchurch killings would understandably leave many Muslim people in Australia and New Zealand feeling vulnerable, insecure and unwanted. I said earlier that the words of political and civic leaders at this time matter greatly. I was heartened by the overwhelming show of support and compassion shown to Muslims across the two countries by so many people.
In Adelaide I attended a public candlelight vigil at Elder Park on the banks of the River Torrens where hundreds of people came together to express their sorrow for the lives lost and their moral support for the wider Muslim community. As always has been the case, tragedy brings out the best in people, and so too it was in Adelaide. Can I say that unity was not just from normal members of the community but indeed from civic leaders, including civic leaders across all religious faiths. It was wonderful to see. I hope it brought some reassurance to the people of Adelaide, and in particular to the Muslim community of Adelaide, that they are not only supported but that we share their sorrow with them.
In my own electorate, I represent many people of Muslim faith and I've got to know many of them personally and well. I call them friends. They are good people who, like so many before them, came to Australia or went to New Zealand in search of a better life. They should not be judged on how they dress, how they speak, where they came from or what religion they follow but on what is in their hearts and in their minds. I reflect on the words of Martin Luther King in 1963 in his 'I have a dream' speech: he spoke of his children and said he hoped that 'one day they would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'. How true do those words ring when we think about those people who are discriminated against regularly throughout the world today, even here in our own country? I say to the people who are grieving: we here in Australia grieve with you. I grieve with you. Whilst you might grieve for your sisters and brothers in New Zealand about what happened, let me assure you that most Australians are as deeply offended by what happened as you are.
Lastly, I say this: we must learn from what happened in New Zealand and do all we can to ensure that the same doesn't happen again. Of course we should remain vigilant to what is happening around us, because our law enforcement agencies alone cannot guarantee public safety for all people at all times in all places, nor should racial hatred and prejudice be tolerated under the umbrella of free speech, as so many other speakers have already said.
It will take much more than laws to end racism. It will take people, wherever they are, to speak out against it and take a stand. I hope that this motion in this parliament is an expression that will be noted by the Muslim community around Australia and an expression that will provide perhaps a minuscule level of comfort not only to the families of those people in New Zealand who have lost loved ones and to those who are still recovering but to the broader Muslim community, who I know right now are not only carrying the sorrow but also carrying their concerns about their members of their community.
I rise today to acknowledge and express my condolences for the tragedy that was the act of horror and terrorism in New Zealand last month, which saw the loss of 50 innocent lives in Christchurch. To the Muslim community in New Zealand: we stand with you. To all of New Zealand: we stand with you. To the Muslim community in Australia and around the world: we stand with you. I also stand in solidarity with members of our local Muslim community and all migrant communities in the electorate of Burt. No part of Australian society, any society, should feel isolated, alone or a target. We must all, as a global community, stand against hate, for it is hate and hate speech that enables and excites these extremists. No act of terror can be ignored, and they should always be condemned.
We must also never blame the victims. Fifty innocent lives were taken when they were at their most vulnerable and in their place of worship due to hate. These lives were taken in an effort to drag the New Zealand and, indeed, in part, the Australian communities apart to create fear. But it did not work, and it will not work. Not only did this horrendous attack bring out the best in community spirit and acceptance; it drew our two nations, always intertwined in history, even closer. Far be it for me as a humble Australian backbencher to commend the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, for her leadership, humanity and compassion. Anyone who knows or has followed the New Zealand Prime Minister's career is not surprised by this. The reason it stands out is that it reflects the view of the wider New Zealand polity. It is such unity of purpose and values that have been sadly missing on our side of the Tasman.
Australia is a wonderful country, and that is significantly due to its generally bipartisan approach to multiculturalism. Ours is a unique approach, like no other in the world. We do not require assimilation where everyone must be the same, nor do we promote ghettoisation or segregation. As the second verse of our national anthem states, we invite those from around the world to share our boundless plains and to continue to celebrate their culture and traditions here in Australia. This is consistent with our core Australian values of freedom and respect—respect for the rule of law, democracy and each other. We are indeed a melting pot of cultures and creeds going back over 65,000 years, because what makes you an Australian is what is here in your heart.
I am proud that in the electorate of Burt we house two mosques, two Islamic schools and the Australian Arab Association headquarters. We also have thriving Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan, African, Polynesian and many other communities. I am so proud to have them all as part of the Burt community and, indeed, the Western Australian and Australian communities. This is a diversity that should be celebrated— and I do celebrate it—along with most others in our community.
I am proud to have had the opportunity to stand alongside my WA Labor colleagues Tony Buti, Terry Healy and the Minister for Community Services, Simone McGurk, at the Masjid Ibrahim mosque in Southern River the weekend before last to offer my condolences to the community and to show my support. This open day also provided an opportunity for non-Muslims to share and learn more about our Muslim community, and it was wonderful to see so many in our community take up that opportunity. It stood in stark contrast to when, during the 2016 election, the two mosques in my electorate, in Thornlie and Southern River, were attacked in the most insulting and terrifying way, for it is our multicultural society that makes our community actually stronger and all the richer. As a multicultural society, we must accept and protect each and every person's right to practice their faith freely and without any form of intimidation or violence, just as we ask them to do the same and as all Australians stand for a fair go.
The weekend after the attack in Christchurch, I spoke at the LiveLighter Arab Festival in Langley Park in Perth's CBD. There had been concern leading up to this event about whether or not the event should go ahead. The organisation and community were concerned about security, but they were more concerned about not being seen to cower to terrorism, hate or fear. They stood strong and continued. Our wider community came together to acknowledge and to celebrate. It was an example of how we should carry on with love of our neighbour, for love will always conquer hate and fear.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate on this important motion moved by our Prime Minister. I join in the spirit, which has been expressed consistently in this debate, of unequivocal condemnation of an appalling act of terror in Christchurch, at two mosques, and in recognition that we must condemn the hate that fuelled that act of terror.
Beyond expressing my condemnation, I want to briefly talk about three things that occur to me as important to be expressed in this debate on behalf of my constituents. They are: to speak of sorrow, to speak of solidarity and, perhaps most fundamentally, to speak of responsibility. I do so having listened to many contributions in this debate, including that of the Prime Minister, which I was pleased to listen to in the chamber, and that of my leader, the member for Maribyrnong, who I think gave the best speech I have heard him deliver—of many great speeches—in setting out a principled framework to respond to this act of terror, and to assume our responsibilities, broadly defined.
I think it is important though to start with expressing my sorrow. It is simply impossible to imagine the consequences of the terrorism on those directly affected. They are the worshippers, their families, their friends, the community they are a part of, the responders and the entire New Zealand community. As I've joined others in wonderment at the leadership shown by Prime Minister Ardern, I've found myself thinking of the impact this has had and will continue to have on that country and this community. I express all my sorrow and all my best feelings to all New Zealanders, but particularly to the New Zealand Islamic community.
I want to talk about solidarity with all New Zealanders. I think all of us in Australia understand the special relationship we have with our neighbours across the Tasman, but with the Islamic community in New Zealand, especially, and the Muslim community in Australia. I'm very proud to represent a large, vibrant and diverse Muslim community in the Scullin electorate. As a person of no religious faith, I've been touched by the welcome that's been extended to me at the Epping mosque, particularly at the Thomastown mosque, and the great relationships and friendships I have around Al Siraat College, which has been such a hub of the Islamic communities of Melbourne's north. I know how much these events have shocked and affected everyone associated with those communities.
I've done my best, along with my state parliamentary colleagues, to indicate my unswerving support for these communities. I was really touched on the Saturday morning following the terrorism. I stopped by the Thomastown mosque—it was reasonably early in the morning—to drop off some flowers and a note, having spoken with the president the night before. I was touched to see so many flowers and so many notes from other community members expressing their solidarity. It's that spirit of solidarity, on behalf of the Scullin community, that I want to make very clear in this place.
Lastly, I want to talk about responsibility, because we can't shy away from a couple of hard facts in this debate. One is that the person who committed the murders, the act of terror, was an Australian. We can't shy away from that fact. We can't shy away from our responsibility to ensure that every member of our community feels that they are truly a part of it. That goes to how we all conduct ourselves in this place. I think we can all do better at expressing our differences in a manner that is more respectful. We also have to acknowledge, as others have done in this debate eloquently and effectively, that words matter and words can hurt.
I was so pleased that the Senate has so fundamentally repudiated the vile contribution of a senator whose name I won't mention in this place. I think that sends a very strong signal to people who are feeling under siege, to people who feel threatened, that we are on their side. It is about solidarity. It is about showing that we are all together in this. It is about showing our faith in love over hate, in hope over fear, in what we have in common being so much stronger than anything that might be seen as dividing us from our neighbours and our friends. But it also means that all of us who are in positions of leadership have to assume the responsibility, and we have to be clear—in standing up for those who are vulnerable, in standing up for those who are marginalised—that we are standing, in this place and in our communities, against the far Right hate speech which fuelled this awful act of terror.
It is with great sorrow that I participate in this debate, but I have been so heartened by the contributions my colleagues have made in it. I hope that brings a measure of condolence to those directly affected but also a measure of comfort to the hopeful multicultural society we can, should and will be.
A little over two weeks ago the world was completely shocked and heartbroken at the horror that we saw unfold in Christchurch, New Zealand. We express our deep sympathy to the victims—those that were wounded and may still be in hospital, the friends and family of those lost—and to the people of New Zealand more generally, and we share in their sorrow.
As I'm sure others have said, it was quite shocking for it to happen in Christchurch, in New Zealand, because I think many of us think about New Zealand as quite a peace-loving place, and it made this horror really shocking for people. It would be shocking anywhere, but, when it happened in New Zealand, I know that in our community in Darwin it really hit home. The Islamic Council of Northern Territory chairman, Sadaruddin Chowdhury, said recently that the community was very shaken, and told of how he'd lived in Darwin for more than 20 years and had always felt very safe. He went on to talk about how Darwin was very multicultural, with Muslim communities blending in and being welcomed. He felt that that was very special and unique, having around 3,000 Muslims from around 28 countries living in Darwin. He believed they'd never felt unsafe in Darwin and had never had any major event or incident in Darwin; however, he also quite rightly pointed out that people were feeling very nervous because he was sure that those Islamic communities in Christchurch probably felt exactly the same, up until the shooting started.
It hit our community in the Top End quite hard, so on the Friday I went to the mosque and spent some time with the community. They were very shaken, but I was there to do two things: to pass on everyone's solidarity with them and, also, to talk. Imam Daud allowed me to address the community, and I'm thankful for that because I was able to pass on to the community during their Friday prayers that, while this was an horrific act, the community should be assured of the support of our greater community and our country for what they were feeling and what they were going through, and that we would be showing leadership in speaking out against terrorism as well as wrapping our arms around our brothers and sisters.
At the Friday prayers at the mosque in Wanguri, there were already cards and flowers. One such card said, 'We are sorry for your loss and sorry that this act of terrorism has been brought upon innocent people in your community.' On the following day, I was able to join in a commitment that I already had organised. It was an event that had been organised in advance by the Muslim Student Society. It was around education and Islam and had been organised at CDU, Charles Darwin University. They decided, quite rightly, to go ahead with the event. They had Imam Konda, who's actually based in Canberra, come up and talk to the students. That event, on the Saturday following the shootings, was well attended, including by the Deputy Chief Minister, Nicole Manison, and the Administrator of the Northern Territory, and it served as another opportunity for us as a community to spend time together. It was particularly important for these young students, who have come from all different countries, to know that, in Darwin, they have come to a peaceful place. We encouraged them to engage fully with everyone in our community, as they'd be respected.
Imam Konda, who studied at CDU himself before he moved to Canberra and became the imam there, spoke very well and passionately, calling out the evil acts and calling on everyone present to reject ignorance and hate and to push for unity. I think it's worth quoting some of what Imam Konda said:
This person did not realise that he caused some children to go back home from their school, and they will have no more father or mother.
He called on the audience to embrace peace and the spirit of equality and said that what happened will remain emotionally scarred in our hearts. I thought that was worth mentioning because the reality of the act is that some kids—and we know that children were also killed—went home and found they were orphans, because their parents had been slain.
So that was the event at CDU, and well done to the organisers. The following evening, Sunday evening, hundreds of Territorians from all faiths and walks of life gathered at the community centre beside the mosque to stand in solidarity with the community. I want to thank Feroz Ibrahim for his leadership within the community. I want to acknowledge the Islamic Council of the Northern Territory; the Islamic Society of Darwin; the Islamic Society of Palmerston; the students at Charles Darwin University; the Darwin imam, Imam Daud; Reverend Dr Helen Richmond and her team from the Casuarina Uniting Church; Bishop Charles Gauci; and the Bishop Emeritus of Darwin, Bishop Hurley. Bishop Hurley has now retired as Catholic bishop for the diocese but he spoke at this gathering on the Sunday evening to pass on respect and solidarity with the community. I also acknowledge Reverend Patricia Williams and Reverend Father Ian McDonald from the Anglican Christ Church Cathedral. Also there was a Maori community brother, Mr Waaka Aperahama, from the Ratana Church. It was quite powerful to see someone who had previously lived in New Zealand come to the mosque and express his church's solidarity. And I've already mentioned the President of the Australian Makassan College, Feroz Ibrahim.
I think Charlie King was the final speaker that night. Charlie King is a bit of a legend in the Northern Territory. He's a sports broadcaster with the ABC and he does a lot in the community to reduce family violence—any type of violence. He was quite emotional; it hit home in particular because his wife is a New Zealander. I just want to mention a bit of what Charlie said: 'The events in Christchurch left us shaken, but awakened to the need to stand strong alongside Prime Minister Ardern, the New Zealand people and the community in condemning violence. Her strong leadership has hardened our resolve in saying, "No more," to all forms of violence, from our schoolyards to our sporting fields, in our homes and in our streets, and, yes, in our places of worship. We want our voices to be heard, calling for no more hate speech and no more violence.'
There is no place for racism or hate in the Northern Territory. We are proudly one of the most diverse places in our country. We are enriched by all in our country. I know that our community stands in solidarity with everyone, to respect everyone's human rights so that they can live in peace as everyone ought to be able to do.
Firstly, my thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and loved ones of those who were tragically murdered in New Zealand by an Australian terrorist. I stand in this place today on behalf of the people of Herbert, in solidarity and sorrow with our New Zealand families. Australia is a great multicultural country and we have benefited enormously from our diversity, both socially and economically. Australians and New Zealanders are brothers and sisters. We are family; we are the Anzacs. Together we mourn for our New Zealand brothers and sisters.
I stand here also to pay my deep respect to the memory of the 50 people murdered at their Friday prayers: people at their most vulnerable and humble—children as young as three and four years old. These were people praying in peace. I offer my words of comfort and condolence to the injured and the frightened—to those grappling with the loss of someone they love. I deeply admire your faith, love and forgiveness, and I know that this will help you greatly as you continue living your lives without your loved ones. I also pay my deep respects to the first responders, as they too will have to live with what they witnessed for the rest of their lives.
This atrocious act of terrorism must be a warning, a call for us to pause and reflect. Let me be very clear: as a nation, we will be judged by the standard we walk past. When we think of terrorism, we think of those who we perceive to be of a different faith or culture—people who may be far away. But the reality is that this act of terrorism happened to our neighbours, on their land, by one of our own, an Australian. I think we need to let that sink in: an Australian terrorist. Those are words I never thought I'd utter. We must reflect on this and consider how we as a nation will rethink our view of terrorism and who the terrorists actually are. We need to reflect on our judgemental values and beliefs, that terrorism is always caused and created by another or elsewhere—that somehow extremism and hatred, and the violence that terrorists incite, can only be brought in from overseas. Hatred only begets hatred and violence only begets violence. The Australian terrorist who committed this dreadful act was not born with hatred in his heart; he learned hatred and it grew into an act of unspeakable violence.
Not all extreme right-wing hate speech ends in terror and racial violence, but all terrorism and racial violence begins with extreme hate speech. If there is a swamp of extremism and prejudice and we say nothing and do nothing then we cannot disown what crawls out of that swamp. As I said earlier, as a nation we will be judged by the standard that we walk past. How many times have we heard a racial slur, a racial comment, and said nothing? How many times have we walked by a conversation or an interaction where we witness someone from a different race or culture being verbally abused and continued to walk on? The events in Christchurch surely bring us to a point of serious reflection. This is everybody's responsibility in our country, because we will no longer allow those beliefs to foster in a dark swamp. We will no longer allow those beliefs to be cast into the shadows. Instead, we will shine a light on this behaviour and we will call it out for what it is: extreme far Right racism. We must decide what kind of community we want to live in. Do we choose to allow those around us to speak in hate or fear? Or do we choose to live in a community of hope, compassion, understanding and inclusion?
Dr Martin Luther King famously said:
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I want to say to the Muslim community in my electorate: I stand in solidarity with you, as do the rest of my community, and I thank you for your response of love and forgiveness. Thank you for inviting me to the mosque on the Sunday after that dreadful Friday, to sit with you all in peace, love and forgiveness. The words shared at the mosque were of hope, love and forgiveness. The imam spoke in an amazingly compassionate manner.
My congratulations also go to Prime Minister Ardern, as she handled this appalling situation with amazing leadership. She led from the heart. She showed compassion and love as she met with the affected families. I stand here in this place to commit to my community that I will always lead with love, hope and compassion.
'Al salaam Alaikum'—or 'peace be upon you'—is the way that Muslims greet each other when they meet. They were the words expressed by Prime Minister Ardern at the remembrance service last week a number of times. I start with that because 'peace be upon you' is exactly what we should be thinking about as we consider, take in, process and respond to the events in Christchurch. Often when these terrible events occur—and they occur far too often—I think about the impact on the people who were forced to experience what they did in events such as those that occurred on 15 March in Christchurch, in Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre.
This event occurred during Friday prayers. People would have been at their most peaceful. They also would have been at their most vulnerable. They are thinking of their connection with God, they are going through their prayers and they are shutting out everything else. They are in that moment, as has been said, at their most vulnerable. They would have had no chance to consider what was about to happen to them. Worse still, they had no chance to say goodbye to the people they loved and cared about. They had no chance to make peace with themselves and the things that we all want to make peace with in our lives. They basically fell victim at that moment and were not accorded what we all hope for, which is a rich and full life with the people that you love most.
I think a lot about those instances. I thought these same thoughts on 11 September 2001, when 3,000 people lost their lives in one moment because of the actions of others who believed that they would change the course of history through their own distorted view of the world.
I think about this all the time when I hear of these terrible events and am reminded—as we all are, regardless of our politics, joined as one in our humanity—to think we can do better and that we do not have the right to make a decision about life and death that we know, if we are a God-fearing person, is a decision that a power higher than us is the only power entitled to make. This is sometimes not necessarily expressed in these chambers, because in this day and age it is a true test to maintain faith, but it is something that sustains a lot of people and it is something that would have helped people at this particular point in time.
This is not a moment where hate will meet hate to solve where we're at. In fact, Prime Minister Ardern rightly pointed out in the remembrance service held last week that we have been caught in a vicious cycle of extremism breeding extremism and that this cycle must end. Hate cannot match hate. Anger will not solve where we're at. You have heard some incredible stories from survivors who lost the people they loved the most in their life and who have not met hate with hate but met hate with forgiveness. That is important at this point in time.
I reflect on this because we really are at a point where we are being asked to do better than what we are doing. I will not in my contribution today want to match those events with an anger that will solve and cure nothing. But we are being called to be better than what we are, and that is why a lot of people are reflecting on the words that are being said in the public square and specifically words that carry in that public square. We all have a responsibility, I believe, to do better. It's why you've seen in the Senate today some pretty difficult conversations around some of the words expressed by others who have sought to blame quickly and improperly the motives of others and reach for solutions that will only perpetuate that cycle of extremism. I think we as parliamentarians are called upon to think about what we can do to encourage a better discourse in the public square.
I also think we've looked a lot at what happened on social media, and we have been asked there to see what can be done better. Do we really need to see those images—the livestreaming of events where we experience the moment where someone has lost their right to live? We can do better there. There are traditional media outlets, as well, that I think equally need to consider what they're doing. In the rush to try and clamp down on social media, can we just take a moment to think about how traditional media outlets could do better? I have been very critical of some outlets. I've highlighted some of them and what they've done. I'm not doing this for the simplistic political point-scoring. I keep coming back to this point: 'We can do better than what we are doing.' This is a moment, as has often been the case in other parts of the world where they have sought to heal after some very traumatic and horrific events in their life. You'll often hear a reference to truth and reconciliation. You cannot reconcile if you do not recognise what happened. It is important that we have that frank talk but it has to be twinned with an equal commitment to reconciliation and to work together. This is a very important point.
And so I won't repeat, necessarily, all the outlets that I believe I think could do better, because I have spoken to them individually, I have raised this publicly and I will continue to press the case that we can do better, because, if we're making very divisive remarks for the sake of chasing votes, it is as bad as making and allowing remarks to be aired on your channel, in your news outlet, on whatever program you've got, for the sake of ratings. I believe in many instances this has been done not with a commitment to free speech and not with a commitment to advancing the public interest but because, by letting people from the fringes onto those platforms, it's believed that a controversial remark will generate public interest and, therefore, ratings. And let me put it frankly: this is reinforcing a commercial interest. This is a time for us to focus on national cohesion and unity, and I am absolutely of the view that the good people that exist in Australia's media, when they take the time to reflect on the point, 'Are you allowing controversy for the sake of ratings to benefit your commercial interest above national cohesion?' will, in time, see better, because we have to believe in them seeing better.
This is an important thing. I genuinely believe that the mood of the moment is calling on us all to bring countries and communities together; that is, the time for dividing by creating a sense of the 'other' and then rallying people on your side to go against that side can no longer sustain us these days in the way it once did. It is hard to understand someone who looks different to you, who acts different to you and who speaks a different language to you, but this doesn't mean that they are a threat. We all want what we think is a reasonable aspiration; that is, people can live their lives peacefully, raise their kids and see them play on the front lawn, celebrate those great moments in families, build a greater community and get on with neighbours, do well in their job and see their kids do well in life. These are great things in human life that we want people to be able to live by. If we are all joined as one to make sure that our neighbourhoods, our suburbs, our cities, our states and our countries do better, this is the one test that we should put on people—that we would expect that they contribute and that their contribution will be valued. I think that is worth remembering in this instance.
Often in events such as this—and I noticed this happen recently in the aftermath of Christchurch—it's almost like we have a tragedy abacus that exists, where we cannot for a moment recognise the suffering that people went through without moving one of those little elements of the abacus and saying, 'Well, you experienced this, but what about what happened here?' This abacus that exists is truly horrendous. A death is a death, and it is a transgression. It is wrong when someone has taken the life of another. Equally, I would feel just as strongly if an Egyptian cop lost their life because they were murdered when they went to church, and I've spoken up in this place about it. If you are at the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue and you lose your life because someone walks in and guns you down, it is wrong. It's wrong in Christchurch; it's wrong on September 11. No-one has the right, as I said earlier, to take the life of another in that way. This is wrong full stop, but we should not go, 'Well, where was your outrage when this happened?' The outrage is always there. As Muslims, we are measured in some way by some people as to how we have reacted to what we saw before our eyes. If someone claimed that their religion justified them, then they twisted our faith and did something.
Can I just say, as I am often asked to by some people, particularly on social media, what I feel. I, like every single person in this chamber, do not condone murder. Not one of us condones murder. I don't expect this person, this person or this person here—any of the people in here—to, every time something like this happens in the community, remind people of their disgust of murder. None of us want that; none of us believe in that. We all stand as one to stop it. There are a lot of Muslims who are continually asked: 'How committed are you to Australia? Do you condemn this? Do you stand against this?' Of course people do. They always do. As the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, rightly pointed out the other day, we should not have people, because of the actions of one, blacken the reputations of many. We should not say that that is representative of a broader group, because a lot of people, as has been observed through the course of this debate, have rightly pointed out that not all of us as Australians should be held to account for the Australian who undertook these heinous acts in Christchurch.
As I said before, if you take a moment to think about that and how it's been expressed elsewhere, and then think about this moment—let me put it to you this way. We had one person, a very powerful person, tweet:
Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.
That person was Rupert Murdoch. Is Rupert Murdoch going to put up a tweet that says, 'Maybe most Australians are peaceful but, until they recognise and destroy their growing supremacist cancer they must be held responsible'? Both remarks are incomprehensible.
We need to call this out. For many, it would probably seem a pretty big call to make that type of statement here against one of the world's most powerful people. But I hope this gives that person the time to pause and reflect. Our words do injure. We can do better, we should do better and we must do better. The moment has now come where we have to think about the environment that has allowed some people to believe that it is valid to do something against someone else and cross the line of humanity to take someone else's life.
We are being called on to say, 'Okay, how are we contributing, in the public square, to that environment?' As I said earlier, it's one thing to look at social media and what's been put on there. But that material has been generated because of the shaping of minds and the validation of certain views, and we need to now look at how we are contributing to that. We can do better. We should do better. Peace be upon those who have left us, but peace be upon all of us if we are able to do something better to ensure such things never occur again.
I'd like to congratulate the member for Chifley on his speech. His words were very moving and, I know, from the heart. I rise today to speak on this condolence motion on the terrorist attack that occurred on 15 March. I have a very personal view of what happened. Sadly, I was driving on that Friday, into Sydney from Campbelltown, with my wife and several members of her netball team who were from New Zealand. They're Maori and very fine people. What was a joyous occasion very quickly became one filled with horror at what had happened in Christchurch.
It is important to note that when we arrived at Mosman to begin the coast walk, in support of the Fred Hollows Foundation, the mood was incredibly sombre as it became apparent what had happened. There were people there from every walk of life, from every part of Sydney, from every religion, from every cut. There was unanimous sorrow and anger and hurt at what was evolving in front of us.
Our relationship with New Zealand is unique, and our bond is built on a spirit of mateship and camaraderie, fostered by the Anzac spirit. But it's also fostered by our very parallel societies of openness, of welcoming people from all countries and all religions and all origins. We're more than friends with New Zealand; we're family. The events that happened at the two mosques—the Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre—by any measure were horrific, and I offer my condolences to the families who lost their loved ones. That this could happen in a place with, essentially, a holy name—Christchurch—is even more horrific. The people of New Zealand must have been in a state of absolute shock. The impact of what happened there has resounded around the world but particularly in Australia. Certainly in my community of Macarthur we have many people from New Zealand, and they were deeply affected. In the words of the very formidable New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern:
We were not chosen for this act of violence because we condone racism, because we're an enclave for extremism, we were chosen for the very fact that we are none of these things …
Those words just echo the horror of what happened in Christchurch, which, as anyone's who has been there will know, is a peaceful beautiful place.
The resolve of the New Zealand population to come together to unite and demonstrate their peoples' collective values in compassion, tolerance and inclusion in the wake of this horrific attack has been nothing short of remarkable. Even in their darkest days—in the wake of such an abhorrent, cowardly and barbaric attack—our friends from across the ditch have shone as a beacon of hope across the world. The global community and world leaders are rightly looking to New Zealand and their reaction to this devastating event at this time. New Zealand have not been found wanting.
However, there is no doubt in my mind that we face a unique challenge in this day and this age. The politics of fear and division are again raising their ugly head all over the globe. How we respond to this form of lowest common denominator politics, which seems to install fear, hatred and division, will shape the political discourse of our nation and other nations in the future. My hope is that people from all around the world continue to look to what's happened in New Zealand and how they've reacted to this tragedy and learn from it.
New Zealand has proven to us that love trumps hate. The values of those that would seek to exploit fear and encourage division in our society should be rejected in their entirety. In my previous life as a paediatrician I was used to asking people lots of questions about themselves, their families and their children and their histories—sometimes very intimate questions. One question I never asked was their religion, because it wasn't important. People of all religions have come to Australia and they have been welcomed. People of the Muslim religion have come to Australia since the founding of the colony and been able to practice their religion and live peacefully without questions being asked. But lately people are focusing on the things that divide us—that make people different—and they just shouldn't. In my role as a paediatrician I find it absolutely hateful that this division has been exploited by the very worst of our politics and by the very worst of our politicians. It is shameful—utterly shameful.
I visited my Muslim community and local mosques as soon as I could after the tragedy—the terrorist attack. I was absolutely astounded by the response: people were responding with love, they were responding with unity, they were responding with an understanding that I really found hard to believe in the face of what happened. I find it shocking that people in my community now feel fearful to be seen to practise their religion, fearful to dress the way they want to dress and fearful to go out in public, just because of their religion. To me, their religion is unimportant. We have people of all religions in my electorate of Macarthur, and people should feel safe to practise their religion, to be seen in public and to espouse their views of love and feeling together, without this overlay of fear and division that is being fostered by the very worst of our politicians. I'm ashamed to say that some of them sit in this House. To me, that is really an indictment of where we've come to. I think things can change, but it is important for all of us to call out those who would seek to divide us and those who would seek to foster their own hatred upon others.
We've experienced terrorism in Australia before, but what we saw in Christchurch was a scale above anything that we've seen previously. That such hatred should come from a society like Australia is something that is absolutely shocking. The politics of fear and division have been raising their ugly head in front of us. They've been here in the three years I've been in this parliament, and that is shameful. It must stop. Every time someone raises this issue, they should be shouted out and shouted down, no matter their political party or political persuasion. I will no longer ignore it. Perhaps to my shame, there were things said in this place before that I had ignored. We should call it out on every occasion.
What has happened has really shocked me. It's my sincere hope that we as Australians continue to follow the lead set by New Zealand by rejecting intolerance and supporting peoples' right to freely practice their religion and their beliefs in peace. To my local residents of Macarthur who've been expressing their apprehension and fear in the past few weeks, I'll simply say that you are welcome here, you are part of our society and I will do my best to make sure that that continues for as long as I'm in this position. It's important to note that many of our medical community are of the Muslim religion. Over 15 years ago now, I became very unwell, and I believe that I owe my life—certainly my quality of life—to a Muslim doctor. I really cannot believe that, in a society like the one that I grew up in, we would have views of such difference and division and hatred still being espoused by people who claim to represent their communities politically. It is a great shame and something that we must all call out.
I rise to speak on this motion moved by the Prime Minister in relation to the Christchurch attack. I, too, want to condemn what happened and condemn the actions of that individual who cut short the lives of 50 innocent people. Murder is wrong. Murder is completely wrong and we should call it out. It doesn't matter your faith; we know that murder is the wrong thing to do in all faiths. It doesn't matter whether it's Muslims being murdered, Christians being murdered, Yazidis being murdered or nonbelievers being murdered, murder is incorrect.
I want to stand with the member for Chifley. I appreciated his speech before, whilst I was in the chair. I think the member for Chifley, as a colleague in this place, is a smart, intelligent man who has a Muslim faith. I myself am a Christian, but I really respect the member for Chifley and I want to put that on record and appreciate what he had to say here today.
I've got a small Muslim community in my electorate of Petrie, and a lot of them are good people. A lot of them are definitely great people who I value. I've met many of them quite a few times. In fact, some are actually supporters of mine. I want to put that on record. I went down to my local mosque on the Friday after the attack and I met people as they came out of their prayer time. I didn't have to say anything at all. I think the fact that I was there and the fact that I was able to shake their hands on the way out and say, 'I'm with you at this time,' spoke volumes to them. I could see that they appreciated it.
I think the member for Chifley was right before when he said that people are fearful of what they don't understand. That's the reality. Many of us get in our own little bubbles; we mix with people who believe the same thing and we don't really go out of our way to understand what other people think and believe. It's okay to have a different belief or a different opinion but when you actually mix with other people and you understand what they actually are about and why they do things, it helps our society overall. I want to put that on record.
I said in my first speech in this place in 2013 that life is about relationships. Our relationship with God is the most important—and our relationship with other people. I stand by that. I condemn these attacks and stand with the other members here in relation to that today.
Firstly, I acknowledge the contributions that have been made by my colleagues the member for Chifley and the member for Macarthur. I found them both extremely moving and quite insightful. I come to this place having spent a long time here, and I have to say that this is an occasion of reflection. It brings to mind the fact that we have come across the parliament to express our love and condolences for the people of Christchurch and, particularly, the families of those who were so brutally slain by a bigot—someone whose heart was full of hate.
I have an association with Christchurch through my partner, Elizabeth, who is a Kiwi. Her family live in Christchurch—her mum, her sister, her nephews. That place has been through enormous hardship over a number of years. It is such a beautiful place but it has been the subject of such horror, as we saw very recently on 15 March. That someone who may not have been deranged but quite deliberately undertook an act of violence and hate against people who were in the safety of their prayer house, of their mosque, is so shocking that it's difficult to appreciate or understand how a human being could do as this person did—knowingly, wantonly killing people. For me, it just does not compute. The idea of bigotry and hatred of anyone is beyond my comprehension.
My two colleagues have, in their own ways, talked about the importance of us calling out hate, intolerance, discrimination and racism. We must call it out at every opportunity. We should never, ever, ever let it pass us by. We would like to think we are leaders in the community, especially those of us in this place. As leaders, it's up to us to point out the stupidity of this sort of activity and the pain that it causes, and our obligation to each other and to our community to bring people together and to make sure that people feel safe. This is about safety—safety in understanding who I am. It doesn't matter who you are, what your religion is or how you dress; you should feel safe living here in this country of ours.
I don't think there could be anyone who watched the magnificence of the Prime Minister of New Zealand talking about 'us', in her terms—their nation. We are who we are, as we are who we are, and it is up to us to ensure that we put our arms around our brothers and sisters, regardless of who they are or where they're from, and guarantee that, with our expression of love, they are part of us and that we are part of them.
I had the great privilege of attending an event in the hall adjacent to the Darwin mosque the week after this horrific event and being given the privilege to speak at what was a multifaith exercise with hundreds of people present. Community members were just turning up to show how much of an abomination they thought this act was and how important it was they showed love and support for our Islamic brothers and sisters who, in this case, were in Darwin but, of course, are across Australia.
I have a very small Islamic community on Cocos Island and another on Christmas Island. I know these people well. They are wonderful Australians, and their faith is the centre of their being. I'm a Christian. I'm a pretty poor Catholic, but, you know, I know about faith and I know how deeply people feel about their faith, and that's not a bad thing; that's a bloody good thing. And, whether you're an agnostic or someone of faith, the appreciation of the person with faith that the agnostic is allowed not to be a believer, without any imposition of their will, is what we are about.
We've heard of—well, I don't know how to describe it and I don't even want to refer to the idiot who belongs in this other place over here, who made such a horrific statement post the events in Christchurch, but, sadly, I think we have to admit to the fact that there is a very dark underbelly of racism still in this country. We need to call it out and, as the member for Macarthur has said, we have an obligation in this place to call it out whenever we see it.
I've never suffered from discrimination or racism apart from the fact that I'm an old bald white bloke, but I have had the experience of being with people who have been discriminated against in a very awful way. I'll just give you two examples. Many decades ago now I was working in Pitjantjatjara country of northern South Australia, and myself and a Pitjantjatjara person, a bloke, a wati, went on a field trip for three days—or four days, it may have been—driving around the bush, dirt roads, sleeping rough, eating off the camp fire in our swags. We were on our way back to Alice Springs and we called into a roadhouse early one morning to get some breakfast. We both walked in together, both of us dishevelled, both of us in very much the same space, except he was black and I was white, and at that roadside stop they were prepared to serve me but not him. Well, you can imagine. I'm a fairly forthright person, so we didn't stick around.
On another occasion I was working for the Central Land Council in Alice Springs, and we'd had a big Central Land Council meeting up at Daguragu on the Victoria River. We were driving back to Alice, and there was a big gang of people, a big mob of people, and I was travelling with a friend of mine who was a lawyer at the land council. We called into a roadhouse, again to get something to eat. They refused to serve us not because we were white but because we worked for an Aboriginal organisation. Now this is not a century ago; this is relatively recently. We see the suffering that occurs when people are discriminated against because of the racism that undoubtedly exists in some sour place in our community. We see it, and it really is up to us to reach across the table, or shake the hand, or put an arm around the shoulder and make sure that those people who are suffering this racism and discrimination understand that we're with them and we want to work with them to prevent it.
I don't know how any person with a decent conscience or an understanding of how they sit in our community could ever be a racist or could ever condemn someone because of their religion. And most importantly, in this time of—and we've suffered from it. The member for Macarthur pointed out we've suffered from the fact there have been people in this place who have sought to demonise our Islamic brothers and sisters in a way which was designed to cause division and hurt. Well, that's just causing division and hurt. It's not achieving a reasonable outcome for our community. We have an obligation to say to those people, 'You do not do that here.' If I had my way—which I don't, but if I did—if someone in this place were to repeat the performance of that clown who's a senator, then rather than give them the oxygen that they're getting, we should just send them to Coventry. We should just ignore them. We should turn our backs on them, don't relate to them, don't talk to them. And we should make sure the communities in which we live understand that we will not tolerate that behaviour.
And when we reflect again on the events of Christchurch, think about that man in the wheelchair who said, at the commemorative event in Christchurch that was so beautiful, he has forgiven the person who murdered his wife. That's love. I don't think there can be any better expression of what we as human beings should be feeling towards one another when it comes to understanding difference and accepting that it's okay to be different, it's okay to be who you are and to practice whatever religion you want. For us, it's an obligation that we have.
I am really pleased to have been able to say a few words of condolence, but I would ask that those of you who haven't to read, if you get the chance, or refer to Pat Dodson's contribution to the debate on the censure of Senator Anning in the Senate today. It is well worth a go. It is a really remarkable speech. I just want to finish by pinching some words of his, if I may? Senator Dodson said:
We must be of one voice and one heart on this issue. We turn our back against xenophobia, against hate crimes and against any gunmen who hold innocent people in their sights. We call out those who exploit fear and ignorance for political gain, who mock the traditional dress of women of another culture, who seek donations from the manufacturer of weapons of war to override our own laws and who argue that it's all right to be white. Their actions and exhortations would plunge this country back into the killing times—
which he referred to earlier in his speech, around the massacres of Aboriginal people, particularly in the north of Australia. He went on:
We should instead turn our faces to the light of a new future—a peaceful, non-violent, tolerant country of hope, respect and unity, a country where no innocent man, woman or child is ever again the victim of mass murder.
I say to those faithful mourning for their families in Christchurch: Allah yer'ham hom. Rest in peace.
It has been an interesting time, to say the least, to sit in the chamber and listen to members reflecting on this tragedy in a different way. But it shouldn't be surprising. I'm sure all Australians found this very confronting and found different ways to deal with the tragedy that was the Christchurch massacre.
For 50 innocent people to have lost their lives when they were going about their weekly prayer seems totally unbelievable. Most certainly, my heartfelt best wishes go to those families who have to somehow or other put their lives back together and get on with it. We must also consider the many in hospitals, still, that are battling very serious injuries and wounds that may not ever heal properly, not to speak of the mental anguish and damage that has been done. The impacts of this act will go far beyond 50 lives. Fifty lives is easy to say but it just represents such carnage and damage to so many people in Christchurch.
It is an incredible shame to all of us that this murderer was from Australia, and it certainly makes us all wonder. This could very easily have happened right here at home. He could easily have been just as radicalised—maybe the ability to have semiautomatic guns has made a greater impact on the casualties. An enormous lesson has been learnt there. We go back to Port Arthur and realise what a fantastic series of decisions were made following that event.
So many members have spoken about the uncertainty that mainstream Australia has with the Muslim faith. My understanding is that this is largely based around ignorance and not understanding, and not having an opportunity to get to know people from within the Muslim faith, the various brands of the Muslim faith. Like I imagine most MPs did, I took the opportunity to catch up with a mosque—mine was the Albanian mosque—the following Friday when they had their prayer day. The Albanian mosque was built in Shepparton in the sixties. It's something we've always known has been there. It's been a totally normal addition to our city. Many of the friends I met there I didn't realise were Muslim. What we call multiculturalism now is just a very natural dynamic in the city of Shepparton.
We grew up with a larger portion of Indigenous friends at school than, I suppose, most places in Victoria. After the Second World War, we had a larger influx of Europeans that became Sheppartonians and worked the fruit orchards of the Goulburn Valley more than other areas of Shepparton. In the last 15 to 20 years we've had a greater influx of humanitarian and asylum seeker refugees that have found Shepparton their home and have adopted it. It's such a normal multicultural society. For a regional city, it is unique. It is very much par for the course when you go about your daily life.
What was staggering—and this has been touched on already by other speakers—was the love that came out of the Muslims at the end of their prayer session, when they were welcoming civic leaders and people who were invited along. They invited the whole city along—luckily, all 65,000 didn't turn up, but there was a significant crowd there. They were people who just wanted to show their compassion, care and concern. The way that they were welcomed was with not a skerrick of anything other than love. It took away this ignorance and the fear of the unknown. Again, while we believe in different messengers we believe in one God. Whether you're Christian or Muslim, there are different messengers but we believe in one God.
My comments about the day are, I suppose, not dissimilar to everyone else's: multiculturalism doesn't happen by accident. Harmonious multiculturalism doesn't happen by accident. It didn't happen by accident in Shepparton. Without a doubt, there are civic leaders and strong individuals in Shepparton who have been standing up for the last 50 or 60 years with a welcoming heart, making sure that new entrants into the city and the region were welcomed with strong and decisive leadership. The opportunities for our new Australians have always been strong, and their work ethic in the Goulburn Valley has been phenomenal. Their rewards have also been phenomenal.
Today we face new challenges in this area, but the recipe is the same. It's going to take strong civic leaders, strong people who shape opinions, to confront these issues with a very strong but welcoming heart to make sure that our new Australians are given every opportunity to take every advantage of this great country, irrespective of where they settle.
I think that one thing we have been taught by Christchurch is that only love will prevail, and that peace is what everybody wants. We have always taken peace for granted here in Australia. I think that what Christchurch also reminds us of is that maybe we shouldn't take anything for granted. We have to keep working at it and we have to keep being strong in our pursuit of a never-ending peace in this country. I think that if there is anything we can learn, it's to not take anything for granted in this field.
I understand that it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. I ask that all present do so.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the Federation Chamber.
by leave—I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
If you are 16 or 17, you can work full time, you can pay taxes, you can have superannuation paid on your behalf and you can own a car and drive that car, but you can't vote. If you're 16 or 17 you can make autonomous medical decisions about your body. You can join the armed forces, and in most states around Australia you can have sex, but you can't vote. If you are 16 or 17 you can sometimes find yourself, through circumstances that are not of your own choosing, out looking for a house and living by yourself out in the rental market in places like Richmond in my electorate, where recently a flat was being rented for $450 a week and the kitchen was in the garage—the result of crazy laws and policies that have pushed up the price of housing in this country. You can experience all of that but you can't vote.
If you're 16 or 17, you can watch as political leaders sell out your future by creating a climate for you where you'll be going into every Christmas holidays wondering where the next bushfire's going to hit, how many people are going to die from heatwaves and what level of sea rise will affect your suburb, but you can't vote. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds, especially as a result of digital technologies that are available and the amount of news that is available, are probably more politically literate now than they have been for a very, very long time. As we saw with 50,000 people marching down the streets of Melbourne—most of them students—they are very, very politically engaged. I think everyone in this chamber would, if they were to be honest, accept that when they've gone into schools and had discussions with year 11s or year 12s, or spoken to 16- and 17-year-olds in their electorate who are out doing apprenticeships, they've done so with people who are having an impact on the world, who are impacted by the world and who understand the world. In many instances they understand it better than many people who are older than them, but they can't vote.
The decision to restrict voting to people above the age of 18 is an arbitrary one. We have to make a decision in society about where that arbitrary line lies. In other countries they say you can't drive a car until you're 21 or can't have a drink until you're 21; here in Australia we say it's much younger. These things change around the world based on what the society, at a particular point in time, says is appropriate for that society. In Austria they have lowered the voting age to 16, and it's resulted in much, much higher levels of political engagement.
If ever there was a time that young people deserved a say, it is now. We are entering a critical decade where, according to the world's scientists, we could see global warming hit 1½ degrees as soon as 2030—in just over 10 years time. It's not going to be all of us who, in 20, 30, 40 years time, are going to have to clean up the mess as a result of decisions that we and our forebears have taken. It will be the next generation, and they are watching, they are paying attention and they are demanding a seat at the table. And because they're sitting watching politicians make decisions on their own behalf, they're doing things like going on strike because they feel that that is the only way that they are able to express their rage—to take parliament by the scruff of the neck and say, 'You have to be doing better.'
Giving young people the right to vote is one of the ways parliament might start making decisions that don't sell out the future for young people and that don't keep screwing young people over, through climate change, through rising insecurity of employment, through rising housing costs and through lower wages. One of the ways that we might end up in a world where we don't saddle young people with debt just because they choose to go to university, and where we don't put homes out of their reach, is to give them a say and the right to vote. We need to reassess whether or not we got it right to limit voting only to people who are above 18. I and the Greens say, 'No, we haven't.'
The step that we should take now is a simple one. It is to say that people who are 16 or 17 should have the right to vote but not yet be compelled to. They should be able to enrol a bit earlier but then, as they are 16 and 17, they should have the right to vote if they so choose. I want every member of this place to think about this: the next time you have a conversation with a 17-year-old in your electorate, ask yourself, 'Why is it that they are not entitled to vote but someone who is 18 or 19 is?' Have that conversation with a 17-year-old and ask yourself, 'Can you really, hand on heart, say, 'Here's a person who isn't engaged with politics in our community or with the issues that affect them?' Ask yourself, when you talk to the 16-year-old or the 17-year-old next time, 'Why is it that they have the right to work, pay taxes, join the Defence Force, own and drive a car—all of those things—but they are denied the right to representation?'
A simple, simple change which the Greens are advocating for would be to give 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds the right to vote if they so choose. And, as I say, you can enrol earlier. The evidence and the international experience suggests that it is the right thing to do. I'll reiterate: 18 is an arbitrary age. Any cut-off age is arbitrary—we accept that, of course—so we therefore have to have the discussion: is it the right one? It's not, and perhaps students wouldn't have to go on strike in massive numbers to demand that their governments do better if they had a say in our democratic institutions in the first place. I'm disappointed and the Greens are disappointed that the committee has not chosen to take this opportunity to make the reforms that are needed, but hopefully, if we keep pushing, it's an idea that will have its time come, and hopefully it will come soon.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the release of the report Innovating transport across Australia produced by the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities. I commend the chairman of the committee, the member for Bennelong, and his committee for producing a serious, forward-looking report. This report examines how technological advances in areas including automotive vehicles and alternative energy sources demand serious consideration by governments, along with comprehensive planning and significant investment.
The report says:
The automation and electrification of mass transit … has the potential to make our cities and regions cleaner, greener, more accessible and more liveable.
The member for Bennelong noted, in an accompanying media statement, that 'achieving this outcome will demand vision and leadership from government'. He continued to say, 'We need to make the timely provision of the supporting infrastructure for the transition to the fuels of the future.' That is absolutely correct. Technological change is accelerating in the 21st century, particularly in the area of transport.
The fact is that what we have to do is manage the change that inevitably will occur. We must do what we can in terms of planning, coordination and infrastructure investment, and we've seen that this week from one side of politics. We saw that from the Labor Party when we released, on Monday, our plan for managing not only the transition that is occurring around the world to newer fuels but also, in particular, the transition that's occurring to electric vehicles, with our policy that looks towards having 50 per cent of new vehicle sales be electric vehicles by the year 2030; that looks towards 50 per cent of the government car fleet being electrical vehicles by 2025; that allows for 20 per cent accelerated depreciation in the first year, to encourage the private sector to increase its uptake of electric vehicles; and that looks at creating a fund of $200 million to provide the required infrastructure to have charging available on, in particular, our national highways and major road networks.
The fact is that in a country as vast as ours this technology will be required as a precondition for the increase in the supply of electric vehicles. In Australia we have, at the moment, the lowest uptake of electric vehicles in the OECD. This is problematic, because we know that around the world there is no major car manufacturer looking at new internal-combustion engines. They are all looking at electric vehicles and other fuels of the future—hydrogen and other potential innovations that are occurring.
We know also that Australia is the only nation in the OECD that doesn't have fuel emission standards. And we know that, as a result of that, Australian motorists are paying an additional $500 per year at the bowser than they would be if there were available a better standard of fuel that was more efficient. We know that it would produce economic benefits as well as environmental benefits. That's why Labor have said that we'll support the US standards transitioning. We'll sit down with the automotive industry, just as we'll sit down with car dealers and people across the sector, and work through the transition that is required, which is consistent with the report of this important House standing committee, chaired by the member for Bennelong.
Indeed, one concern that's been raised is road user charges and what will happen. There, of course, I was approached by the government about supporting a bipartisan approach to establishing a committee that would report on road user charges and what the implications were—the fact that we will see a change in the mix of vehicles on our roads over the coming years. It is indeed most unfortunate, the government having gone to the 2016 election with that policy and having announced in 2016 that they'd establish a committee chaired by an eminent person, with both representation nominated by the government and a member nominated by the opposition, that not only has that committee, at the end of this term, not completed its deliberations and reported but it hasn't actually started. It was never appointed. It says it all about this government's complete failure to do the basics of government that that hasn't occurred.
The fact is that, if there is a change of government when the election's called in coming days, we will see a change. We'll see the major cities unit re-established to look at a visionary approach to these issues. You'll see once again a government that's prepared to look at change and how it occurs in terms of climate and managing the transition—a genuine approach to dealing with the challenge of climate change and how we transition to a clean energy economy. What you'll see is a government that is committed to managing the transition to the future rather than being fearful of the future.
The report before us includes 17 recommendations. Most of them are just a commonsense road map for what governments have to consider as our transport systems are transformed by the arrival of automated vehicles and other changes that will occur, including the growth of cars powered by electricity and hydrogen. Indeed, recommendation 5 says:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government facilitate the introduction and uptake of electric vehicles (both BEV and FCEV), especially mass transit vehicles, including through coordination and planning of the development of infrastructure to meet demand; ensuring that refuelling and recharging technology follows defined standards for compatibility and interoperability; and by promoting greater coordination between the transport and energy sectors.
Well, we're doing just that. The government's not doing anything, but we're responding to the recommendations of this report. It is a unanimous report chaired, of course, by the government and with a majority of government members.
A range of recommendations for supporting the sector are in recommendation 13. The fact is that we have a policy to deal with these issues. We have a coalition that is scared of the present and terrified of the future. What we need is a government that is prepared to transition the Australian economy through these issues.
There's also an important consideration in this report about automated vehicles that does require consideration. There are real implications for employment, for example, and it is to the credit of organisations like the Transport Workers Union that they've hosted forums giving consideration to what that means. Indeed, recommendation 12 refers to 'an audit of Australia's existing transport communications infrastructure', and that is certainly something that would be required.
In conclusion, I thank the committee and congratulate them for delivering a thoughtful report in a short time frame. Some of the best work that's done in this parliament is done in a bipartisan way, looking at the policy challenges and coming up with recommendations. Certainly the government will give proper consideration to these recommendations if there is a change of government. If there's not, I suspect that what we'll see is more of the same, which is no action on dealing with the challenges of the future.
It is a well-known fact that not all committee reports generate excitement, but this is an exciting report. I, too, commend the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities for this inquiry. Hyperloop, hydrogen transport infrastructure, common charging infrastructure, automated mass transit, cybersecurity for infrastructure—very exciting, very challenging things that we need to be talking about more in this place.
If I can note one nerdy thing, they talk about 'hyperloop' as if it is a generic term. Hyperloop is a proprietary technology based on what is known as a vactrain. The vactrain was invented by Robert Goddard. He is also known as the man who invented the modern solid fuel rockets that got people to space. It is a very amazing technology. We shouldn't put all our eggs in the Elon Musk basket, but it would be very exciting to see a hyperloop or vactrain of some sort as part of our transport infrastructure here in Australia.
When we federated as a nation, these were the conversations we were having. How do we make sure that our infrastructure connects together? How do we make sure that everything works and everything talks to everything else? Some 120 years on, we're having the same conversation. That's a very good thing. How do we ensure that COAG delivers a nationally consistent approach to these new technologies? How do we develop a national strategy for transport communications infrastructure? How do we ensure that our charging electricity networks enable vehicles to travel from one end of the country to the other on any road available to them?
It's not surprising that the private sector is ahead of the government when it comes to charging infrastructure. I commend the RAC in Western Australia for their work in developing the nation's first electric highway, as they call it, in the south-west of Western Australia. You can get from Perth to Margaret River, charge your car and make sure that you have a lovely time while you're visiting the wineries and food opportunities that are down there. I look forward to seeing a rapid expansion of the public charging infrastructure across the Perth electorate, and this report gives us the roadmap on how to do that.
These devices can be installed for less than $4,000 a unit and, if you're a local council, these can often be great revenue generators as you charge road users to charge their cars. I expect that, in coming years, we'll see them on Oxford Street in Leederville, at the Mary Street Piazza, at Bassendean Oval and even at the carpark at Morley Galleria. Equally, government, as a purchaser of vehicles, has a job to do. I was shocked to learn that there is not one fully electric vehicle on the government standard vehicle list. There's not one single vehicle available to the Commonwealth public sector. That's why we have to take leadership in this space too. In this regard, I commend the member for Port Adelaide for his vision for 50 per cent of government vehicles to be electric by the year 2025.
The report also highlights the absurdity that, in a nation of just 25 million people, we have nine different public transport ticketing systems. Surely nationally consistent ticketing and payment systems for public transport are within COAG's ability. Equally, if we can get that far, you could probably also have national access for time-share vehicles and to pay for use of public charging facilities. At the same time, as we go to new tech and new things, we shouldn't forget the cyclists of Australia. Often we talk about that last mile and what connects the big, clever bits of infrastructure. Often that is cycling and cycling infrastructure. One of the things that is a challenge that we'll need to face in coming years is making sure that, when we build major pieces of public infrastructure—train lines, roads, et cetera—we build in cycleways as well so that you actually get the full benefit of those major nation-building projects.
Speaking of major nation-building projects that will benefit in their development from the recommendations of this report, I note that, obviously, in my electorate of Perth, there is a generalist bipartisan commitment to the Perth-Morley-Ellenbrook train line. That's been a big fight and a big win for the community of Perth and includes a major upgrade to Bayswater train station. Again, I want to make sure that that is futureproofed and full of the technology that we need to make sure that it fits in with all the other technologies that are in this report.
Inevitably, you have the conversation about the challenges of what automation means for the workforce of the future. Research suggests that a third of Australian jobs could be lost to automation. But there are new opportunities and new roles to be created. Current roles will be redefined. New career paths will open up. It should mean a transition to more highly skilled, high-income jobs across our country. I read in this report one encouraging comment on the transformation of jobs as opposed to the elimination of jobs. One presenter to the committee talked about the experience in the aviation industry, saying: 'The job of a pilot has changed. They used to fly a plane. Now they watch a system.' As policymakers, we need to watch the system that deals with transport in an entirely different way.
I learnt recently from a mining executive that some of the best people to be the operators and supervisors of autonomous trucks in this country are people with nursing backgrounds. They have everything you'd want in someone overseeing a huge, expensive, complex system: technical training, attention to detail, problem-solving skills—all things in high demand. The competition for new skills will place pressure on existing industries such as health and aged care. We should see this as an opportunity for improved environmental outcomes and clean jobs of the future. I see it also as an opportunity to improve our urban environment. I wish to see this as an opportunity to improve our fuel and energy security.
Australia is already a leader in mining technology. In developing policy responses for innovative transport, we need to fully tap the experience of our mining and resources sector, much of which is based in the heart of my electorate of Perth. There are some 900 mining businesses in the seat of Perth, most of them in the R&D space, making huge investments in finding and perfecting these technologies of the future. We're also well serviced by the researchers in the world of academia, with the Australian Resources Research Centre and the National Resource Sciences Precinct.
To conclude my statement, there has been a lot of talk this week about one of my favourite bands: AC/DC. In talking about electric cars, of course, I should say that one of AC/DC's great songs is 'High Voltage'. High voltage is the future of our transport industry, it's the future of our car industry and it's very exciting.
Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, I think you are in shock after that contribution by the member for Perth! I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to debate on the report Innovating transport across Australia: inquiry into automated mass transit from the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities. Reflecting on the title of the committee focuses my mind on some of the critical transport infrastructure needed in my electorate of Moreton, within the city of Brisbane.
Despite being, historically, one of Australia's most decentralised states, the growth of the greater Brisbane area is jumping ahead. Not only does this growth place complex needs on continually overstretched and underfunded frontline services, like schools and hospitals, it makes transport infrastructure an area that needs a lot more attention. On too many occasions in this space, by the time we realise we need the infrastructure we know it's too late. The corridors are gone, or they're impeded, or construction would cause even greater disruption and many other problems. Cross River Rail is a key example of this. Inaction on public transport infrastructure, kicking the can down the road, not only makes it more difficult to build but increases congestion on local roads while we wait even longer.
Connected with Cross River Rail is the fact that the capacity on the Beenleigh-Gold Coast line is set to grow. What does that mean? It means that the case to fix the dangerous Coopers Plains rail crossing becomes even stronger. Not only I, as the member for Moreton, but my predecessor, Gary Hardgrave, have spoken about the urgent need to get this fixed. I think it was back in the nineties when he spoke about this crossing. He said that it should have been done 20 or 30 years earlier.
With that in mind, I wrote to the Brisbane City Council—to the now former Lord Mayor, Graham Quirk—and asked him to reconsider his 2018 budget commitment, where he was only prepared to pay 15 per cent of the costs of this piece of infrastructure. To compare: the LNP-led Brisbane City Council has previously funded 50 per cent of two crossing upgrades on the northern side of the river, one in Geebung and another in Bracken Ridge. Somehow, on the southern side of the river, there has only been one crossing repaired in Moreton, and that was 100 per cent federally funded. So you'd think that they owed the ratepayers of the south side something. But, no, the Lord Mayor was only prepared to fund 15 per cent of the cost of upgrading this very dangerous crossing—a crossing called out by the RACQ as being very dangerous.
I received a response from Graham Quirk, the previous lord mayor, and he admitted that he'd made generous funding arrangements on the north side of Brisbane—that fifty-fifty arrangement—but he said he wasn't willing to contribute to this dangerous crossing on the south side. He refused to budge from his paltry 15 per cent. Maybe his replacement, who actually used to work for the previous member for Moreton, Gary Hardgrave, will step up. The new mayor is Adrian Schrinner . In fact Adrian Schrinner probably wrote the speech a few decades ago saying that this bottleneck at Coopers Plains should be fixed, so he will understand the problem—I hope. I hope he will reconsider the mean-spirited 15 per cent offer.
The LNP council has been treating south side residents as second-class citizens. But in the 2019 LNP Morrison budget it actually got worse for southsiders. Not one single dollar of federal LNP funding could be allocated to eradicate this dangerous crossing, a crossing that causes chaos on local roads and which spreads out—not to mention the danger it causes for pedestrians running for the train station.
Not only is the LNP council refusing to budge from 15 per cent but now the federal LNP, led by Prime Minister Morrison, is refusing to allocate even one dollar for Coopers Plains, which is the highest priority project in Moreton. Again, we have the LNP treating south side residents like second-class citizens. Compare this with the north side, where they're happy to go fifty-fifty. I'm not asking for fifty-fifty; I'm prepared to go a third, a third and a third—local, state and federal doing their fair share. I know the locals are sick of politicians' buck-passing; they've said it to me time and time again. It's only fair that the cost of this upgrade be shared equally between the three levels of government. What could be fairer than federal, state and local all putting in the same amount?
I'm sure that a new Shorten Labor government will contribute $73 million to help eliminate one of South-East Queensland's worst traffic blackspots, the boundary road level crossing at Coopers Plains, to start to emulate some of the work I've seen going on in Victoria under the Andrews government. This road overpass will significantly boost productivity, so it's good for the bosses. But it reduces traffic congestion, so it's good for the environment, with less particulate matter being pumped out into the air. It also improves road safety for local residents.
Labor will focus heavily on tackling traffic congestion. The member for Grayndler made a contribution about that earlier in talking about this report. Labor always makes significant investment in better public transport. We also want to improve roads through practical projects, such as the elimination of the Coopers Plains crossing. I was proud to stand with the member for Grayndler when he announced that commitment of one-third of the funds required to build it.
Labor, at both a federal and a state level, is prepared to get this mess sorted. We have commitments from the local state member, Peter Russo, and the Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad, that they will do their fair share. We now need the current LNP mayor and Prime Minister Morrison to stop playing politics and pay their share. If they did, we'd be much closer to having shovels in the ground and local jobs created. We'll get this bottleneck sorted. We'll make the streets of Moreton electorate safer. It's time for the LNP to get on board.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:06