I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Ms Wells to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia in place of Mr Fitzgibbon.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Fitzgibbon be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia and that, in his place, Ms Wells be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, this House elect Mr Leeser to continue as a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia for a period of three years from the expiry of his appointment on 10 November 2019.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Archives Act, this House appoint Mr K. J. Andrews as a member of the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council for a period of three years.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the listing and re-listing of six organisations as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Today I present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report:
We, as a committee, review regulations which list a group as a terrorist organisation for the purposes of offences under division 102 of the Criminal Code. We examine the information provided by the Australian intelligence community to the Minister for Home Affairs in support of a listing to ensure that it demonstrates that the group to be listed is:
We also oversee the process by which a group has been listed to ensure it meets the requirements of the Criminal Code. The committee's review of these regulations provides additional scrutiny and assurance for the public that the listing of these groups as terrorist organisations is reasonable and necessary for national security.
This due diligence is very important because individuals who engage with terrorist organisations listed under the Criminal Code may be charged with serious offences. These offences include being a member of a terrorist organisation, recruiting on behalf of a terrorist organisation or getting funds to or from a terrorist organisation.
Our review supported the listing of the following groups as terrorist organisations as defined under the Criminal Code: Islamic State Somalia, and the relisting of Abu Sayyaf Group, al-Qa'ida, al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and Jemaah Islamiya.
We received evidence that:
Our report therefore supports the listing and relisting of these organisations and finds no reason to disallow the regulations. I commend this report to the House.
I am a little bit sad but unsurprised to speak on the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2019. It's just another effort by the government to demonise workers in this time of very low wages growth, increasing pressure put on workers and increasing pressure put on families. I rise today as a proud member of the Labor Party, a party born out of the labour and union movement and as a proud union member myself.
I am of course the member of two unions. The first union that I'm a member of, and have been a member of for 40 years, is the mighty Australian Medical Association, many of whose members populate the foreshores of Sydney Harbour—some of the most expensive real estate in the country—and have very high incomes. The AMA is the body that exists to preserve and promote the interests of its members and also the wider interests of the Australian public through provision of health care. The AMA is a longstanding organisation with a proud history of promoting the health of all Australians. And while it is quite a large body, its membership has contributed to Australian life in many ways over many years. I am indeed a proud member of the AMA.
I am also a member of the Health Services Union—again, another proud organisation that exists to promote the interests of its members and the broader health of all Australians. However, the members of the Health Services Union are some of the most poorly paid, yet hardest working, workers in Australia. I am not a member of the National Farmers Federation, but I cannot help think of them and the work that they do every time a member opposite throws a tantrum, talks down the unions and disparages union members.
Many of the families that I've cared for over many years have family members who are members of a variety of unions. I can attest to the fact that they work hard in the interests of the businesses and the organisations they work for. They rely on unions to preserve their rights and their benefits. I'm a unionist because I believe in the power of collective bargaining, and I'm a unionist because I believe in workers' rights. I'm a unionist because I believe that no employee should go onto a worksite and have their safety and even their lives placed at risk by poor work practices. I've certainly seen a number of families that I've cared for lose family members because of workplace accidents.
Of that number, I remember in particular a fellow called Mark Evans, who was a truck driver. He was tragically killed in his work when a rock was thrown from a bridge at Menangle and went through the window of his truck, killing him instantly. He was a lovely, decent and hardworking man—the father of two lovely children. His wife then had to bring up her two children by herself. I remember Mark very well, because I looked after both his premature children for quite a long time after they were born at Campbelltown Hospital. I'm a unionist because I support the rights of people like Mark to have their lives protected. I'm a unionist because I'm a father, a husband and a grandparent. I want my children and my grandchildren to be protected and safe at work, and not taken advantage of.
What we are debating here today is just another ill-conceived attempt by those opposite to denigrate unions and bodies that represent workers, and to denigrate the workers themselves. It's just in the DNA of those opposite to attack workers, their representatives and their representative bodies. After all, it was those opposite who gave us the long-ago, unlamented WorkChoices. It was those opposite who allowed and continue to advocate for worker penalty rates to be stripped away, and it was those opposite who have kept wage growth low on a deliberate basis.
We must remember, however, that it's also those opposite who stridently opposed a royal commission into the banks and their work practices, and their efforts to eat away at the lifestyles of Australian workers and working families. At every chance, those opposite—the elected members of the Liberal and National parties—seek to strip away the rights of workers all around Australia. They see working Australians as their enemies. Perhaps that's because most working Australians would not be able to pay for a $10,000-per-head fundraiser for the Liberal Party at the headquarters of a massive media conglomerate. Or perhaps it's because working Australians believe it's wrong for someone to be paid $2 for an entire day's work.
My point is this: those opposite are out of touch and they're out of step with the needs of working Australians. The coalition, of course, have got very clever at pretending, every time they attack workers and unions, that they have a big picture in mind. In a time of increasing company profits, wage stagnation, lack of collective bargaining and deterioration in workers' standards of living, those opposite want to do what? They want to attack the rights of workers and their representatives. It's a shame.
I was in small business for decades. I know that working Australians work hard for what they get and they need their rights protected. All those opposite are ever interested in is promoting the interests of their mates at the top end of town. It's quite clear in Australia that we are facing polarisation and the development of a class system of serfs and landowners and landholders. And it's sad to see that those opposite would promote destruction of those who look after workers' rights as their priority. It's never about helping mums and dads put food on the table with this coalition; it's about how much money they can shove in the pockets of their mates, and that comes at the expense of workers and their families. Every time members of the Liberal and National government try to make unions public enemy No. 1, they are actually attacking the interests of their constituents, their loved ones and probably even the economy. I cannot understand how those opposite, particularly those who describe themselves as moderate, continue to do this. You can believe in small government and still believe in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. If you want to protect the rights of workers then you should stand up for those who represent workers. You've got to believe in the union movement and in union values in terms of protecting workers' rights and workers' incomes.
I'm not sure that there are any true small-l Liberals left amongst those left amongst those opposite. This is a government that is shifting further and further to the right. It is determined to wrap unions in red tape to prevent them from doing their important work—defending their members' rights in fighting for better conditions, better pay, safer workplaces and protection for those who have been wronged in the workplace. Perhaps the coalition has finally discovered it is unpopular to attack the interests of working mums and dads, who are already struggling to make ends meet in these very difficult times. It doesn't look good to continuously harass their representatives and strip away their rights, so, instead, those opposite are opting to attack working-class Australians and their interests by placing restrictions on the financial management of unions. They have worked out this ploy as a way to attack working Australians. This is what we have come to in this country.
We aren't standing in this chamber doing important work on the economy, delivering policies that would revolutionise our hospitals, cut waiting times in emergency departments and provide free access to high-end specialist care. We aren't here trying to address low wages growth, the falling standards of living for many Australians, housing unaffordability or freedom of the press, or trying to improve the lives of working Australians; what we're doing is attacking workers' representatives. It is a terrible shame. This very conservative government is trying to restrict the capacity of our unions to defend working Australians.
Returning to my original anecdote on the importance of bodies that collectively represent their members' interests, imagine if we were here trying to place restrictions on the operations of the Farmers Federation, on the AMA, on the Business Council or on the Bankers Association. Imagine if we were doing that. There would likely be a huge schism in the coalition within a very short period of time. In my opinion, it's high time that the marriage of convenience between The Nationals and the Liberals came to an end, because our colleagues in the National Party can surely see the benefits of supporting small business and supporting workers. So let's hope that maybe in their behind-closed-doors meetings some of this will come up. This is where all the credibility to the arguments made by those opposite goes out the window. Legislation such as this isn't driven out of values or ideals; it is driven out of a desire to attack working Australians and the labour movement, nothing more.
The rhetoric is pathetic. We've come to expect constant hypocrisy from those opposite, and they relish these double standards. With those opposite, it's one set of rules for the top end of town—the ruling elite—and another for working Australians, and that's one reason why we are seeing a polarisation in our society. What this legislation does is effectively shut down worker-run funds while allowing employers to set up and run their own funds with little restriction. Worker entitlement funds fundamentally exist to protect workers' entitlements; however, they also exist to protect and service workers through provision of services, such as training, occupational health and safety officers, counselling, and, indeed—particularly in the construction industry—suicide prevention.
Shockingly, the government sees fit to restrict this. Why? Because those opposite do not care for the rights of working Australians. They're only interested in advocating for their mates and for big business. We see this in their response to the banking royal commission. We see this in their lack of oversight of the construction industry, particularly in states such as New South Wales. We see this in their response to the life insurance industry and some of the financial services continuing to take money from people who have passed away. We see this in their lack of oversight of workers in the gig economy. And we see this in their lack of oversight of some of the terrible practices that have occurred in some of the rural industries as well.
This legislation will give more power to the Registered Organisations Commission, and I want to specifically mention this as it causes me great concern. The commission has shown itself to be a politicised institution, acting as an enforcement arm of the Liberal and National parties. This is a terrible thing, and it should be discredited following its terrible attacks and raids on the Australian Workers Union and the leaks that occurred to allow the press to be there for the raids et cetera—a lack of oversight without any sort of propriety at all. I want to be clear: I'm sure there are good people in the Registered Organisations Commission, but the way the coalition government have constructed this agency to attack their political enemies is nothing short of abhorrent and tyrannical. Those opposite have turned attacking working Australians, their representatives and the labour movement into a full-time blood sport.
I say again: we aren't here trying to fix our schools and hospitals. The government, instead, is discussing ways in which we can attack those who advocate for the interests of their constituents, our loved ones and for Australian values. We may as well be here attacking the Salvation Army as far as I'm concerned. I'm a proud unionist, and I will not stand idly by while those opposite constantly attack the values of the union movement and attack organisations that have assisted my friends and my family and countless thousands of Australians in times of great need.
I want to take this time to list some of the important things that unions do. Unions defend workers who have been unfairly dismissed. They assist workers in recovering lost wages and money that has been stolen by their employers. They bargain to ensure that workers do not receive a pay cut against inflation. They defend the rights of our paramedics, police officers, nurses, firefighters and, indeed, our doctors in public hospitals. They ensure that members are not made to work in unsafe conditions, and they ensure that workers' lives are not placed at risk as a result of cost cutting on behalf of an employer. And they provide support to grieving widows, widowers and children of people in times of need after unspeakable disasters. Perhaps it's time that those opposite bear all this in mind the next time they decide to undertake a bit of worker and union bashing.
I thank all the members for their contributions to the second reading stage of this bill, the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2019. Of course, as the procedure in these matters goes, this bill is already the subject of a Senate committee, and the hearings into the bill have already commenced. In fact, they were reported in news media yesterday—perhaps not widely enough, given some of the quite extraordinary pieces of evidence and submissions that were made. Perhaps I can commence by reading out some passages from one report that appeared in The Australian Financial Review yesterday about the proceedings of the Senate committee's hearing into this bill. That report notes:
Protect, founded by the ETU Victoria and the National Electrical Contractors Association, revealed it distributed $60 million in "surplus funds" to its two founders for the first time in its submission to a Senate inquiry into the Morrison government's bill to regulate worker benefit funds.
So, for the first time, this organisation, Protect, which is one of the worker benefit funds which is meant to be properly and transparently regulated by this piece of legislation, acknowledged that it had transferred $60 million over two years to the National Electrical Contractors Association, known as NECA, and the Electrical Trades Union's Victoria branch. The report goes on to note:
The amounts were far in excess of surplus distributions in previous years, which have averaged $630,000 for the ETU and $210,000 to NECA over the past two decades.
That amount of just over $800,000 over two years jumped up to $60 million over two years, and this was, as the report notes, the first time that's been acknowledged by Protect. The article then goes on to note:
Protect 2017-18 annual report made no mention of the amounts and the fund has previously refused requests to identify the total amount distributed to its sponsors.
So before a Senate committee, it's required and compelled to give that information. As is noted, prior to that point, this worker benefit fund, Protect, had refused requests to identify the total amount distributed to its so-called sponsors. I must say that after 11 years in politics—five state and six federal—there are few more outrageous things that I have seen than the money that is being transferred by worker benefit funds like Protect in a complete absence of regulation and legislative oversight.
It's outrageous not because it's unlawful but precisely because there are no laws governing these types of unbelievably large transactions of workers' money. The central question that arises for anyone concerned about workers' rights and their rights to the money that is supposedly held in these funds to their benefit is this: are these funds, at present in an unregulated environment, in many instances simply giving away workers' money to third parties, as exampled here by the ETU and the National Electrical Contractors Association, NECA? And when I say 'giving the money away' to those third parties, are these worker benefit funds allocating money in a way to these third parties where there is no ability whatsoever to determine what these third parties are actually spending the money on? Is there any evidence that this money is being spent fulsomely and in its whole part to the benefit of workers?
What was fascinating with respect to this Senate committee hearing was that when Protect were asked what NECA spent its share of the surplus funds on—keeping in mind that this was $14.8 million that the National Electrical Contractors Association had been provided with over two years—Protect said that 'to the best of our knowledge' NECA directs its share of the surplus funds to its Victorian education fund, which invests in training. There is nothing wrong with that money being invested in training; that's quite appropriate. That's what we'd expect the money to be invested in.
But forget the union for a moment; let's look at the employer association, NECA. Where is the evidence that there has been $14.8 million worth of training provided by that organisation? The fact is that it simply does not exist and will never exist unless we have legislation of this type properly regulating the incomings, the outgoings and the proper transparent accounting for these organisations. Where is the evidence that $44 million allocated to the Electrical Trades Union over two years has actually been expended on the things that we would expect it be expended on—bereavement funds, counselling, training and things of this nature, which both sides of the House accept are the legitimate purpose of these accounts? Where is the evidence that it is being spent on these types of appropriate expenditures?
In the complete absence of that evidence, looking at the evidence of incredibly large directors fees and administration fees, we are seeing precisely the same type of thing that was uncovered in the banking royal commission—what looked like fees for no service and massively bloated administration fees to people that it was impossible to identify. The root cause of those problems is, as this report notes and as was heard in the Senate committee only several days ago, that there is no requirement to record the expenditure or the incomings or the outgoings. Indeed, in its annual report Protect made no mention of the amounts and had previously refused requests to identify the total amount distributed to its sponsors. Imagine distributing $44 million and $14.8 million but refusing to even acknowledge the fact of the transfer? You would have thought, if the recipients of those transferred funds were doing the right thing and spending that money in the way that people opposite and people on this side of the House expect it to be spent, that there wouldn't be a problem in at least acknowledging that the moneys had been transferred to those organisations. This is absolutely scandalous. Forgetting for a moment the role of the ETU in this transaction, NECA should delineate precisely what that $14.8 million has been spent on or will imminently be spent on to the benefit of workers, or they should give the money back. The same applies to the ETU. If they are unable to show where that $44 million is being expended or imminently will be expended to the benefit of workers, that money should be returned.
The central difficulty with all of this is that there is no proper regulatory system. These funds are exempt from the applications of corporations law that would otherwise ordinarily apply to other managed investment schemes. That is essentially what these funds are—managed investment schemes. In fact, they are large and sophisticated managed investment schemes. They would ordinarily be required to register under the Corporations Act, but there has been a class order that exempts the funds, which seems to be going on in perpetuity. It exempts the trustees of these workers' funds from holding an Australian Financial Services licence, something you'd think might be a basic requirement for funds that are now managing in excess of $2 billion worth of workers' money. Because the requirements that usually apply do not apply, it means that these workers' benefits funds are not required to have a compliance plan. They're not required to have a compliance committee. They do not have capital requirements, so the capital that is meant to be kept safe in perpetuity to pay for things like severance benefits is not actually stipulated and there is no capital requirement. They do not have audit requirements. They do not have an obligation to maintain certain competence requirements. They do not have requirements to ensure responsible officers are fit and proper persons to hold office in these organisations.
Two royal commissions—not just one but two royal commissions—have acknowledged all of the ongoing difficulties that arise through that lack of regulation. Two royal commissions have noted that funds not regulated when they should be have the capacity and tendency to treat union members more favourably than non-union members and to use income earned on contributions for 'any purpose that they see fit'. This is the point. It seems to be the argument from members opposite that we should simply trust that this $44 million and this $14.8 million are not being spent in a way that is fit for the ETU or NECA. We should just trust that they're being spent to the benefit of workers. NECA, in their own reports, simply list the receipt of those funds as improving their bottom line. That is the exact opposite of evidence that it's actually being spent to the benefit of workers.
This ASIC class order was never intended to be an interim measure, but it continues in perpetuity in effect. The consequence is that the entitlements funds are not otherwise subject to the requirements in the Corporations Act for comparable managed investment schemes to treat employee members equally. One of the great and shameful failings of these schemes is that, even where moneys are transferred back to a union or an employers' association and even where that association does and can show through proper transparency and accounting that they're spending the money on workers, there has been documented evidence of the money that was sent back to the third-party union being expended on welfare programs only for workers who are members of the union. The money, which sits in the workers' benefit fund, which has been transferred back to the union or to the employer association, represents money hard earned by both union member and non-union member workers. For example, it was heard before the royal commission that several of the welfare services offered by the fund BERT, the Building Employees Redundancy Trust, were only offered to union members. The money represents the money of both union and non-union members but is filtered back to BERT, who offers the welfare training and funds and the application of that welfare only to members of the union. It's totally inequitable, outrageously unfair and completely unregulated, and there's nothing that anyone in our parliament can do about it—and something should be done about it. It raises the question: why is Labor slumbering on this issue, an issue that represents a colossal and outrageous misapplication of workers' money? And that's something that they will have to answer.
Currently, there are no legislative requirements for these funds to disclose any fees they charge. Of course, there was quite properly enormous outrage during the banking royal commission when it was shown that fees were being charged for no service. We don't have the capacity to even know what fees are being charged here let alone whether or not their directors' fees or administrative allocations of money are providing any value whatsoever to the workers. We have no means of working out what they are unless, by the goodwill of the third-party organisations, whether they are a union or employers' organisation, they determine to put it somewhere—hide it in some annual report. And, of course, Protect refused to even acknowledge that money had been transferred until they were brought before a committee, as was reported in TheAustralian Financial Review yesterday. These funds don't have to be operated by people of fit and proper character. They do not have to have independent voting directors on their boards.
I'll address a few of the matters raised by the members opposite. Members opposite said, 'They're trusts essentially'—and some of them are but not all of them, by the way—'so they can just be regulated like any trust fund.' Well, that is a hopeless way to regulate billions of dollars under management, because it requires the workers themselves, not an independent regulator who's properly tasked with the role by the government, in effect to become the litigants if they see things going wrong. That's hopelessly inadequate even for the workers' benefit funds that actually are trusts and where that could arise.
Then we had an argument by those opposite which is so astoundingly weak that I can't really believe it was even raised here—that is, under existing laws, employers who choose not to set up workers' benefit fund bills can apply interest in ways such as reinvest in their own business, so, where a workers' investment fund is set up, it should effectively be allowed to spend the interest in any way it sees fit. The first problem with that is that 'any way it sees fit' might not be a way that benefits workers, and the standards set up by the employer in these circumstances, by the workers' benefit fund or by the third-party unions or employers' associations who take distributions is that the money will be expended to the benefit of workers. That is the standard that they set for themselves in these circumstances. There is a world of difference between an employer who holds an entitlement for their own employees being able to allocate interest earned on those moneys where they are abiding by all of the requirements of the corporations law to keep the contingent liability to pay for things like severance payments into the future and a union or employer association simply being able to spend the money with no regulation in any way it sees fit from lump sum payments that they, the union or the employer peak organisation made no contribution to.
I thank the minister. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion on the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that Labor would have acted on Commissioner Hayne's recommendation to end grandfathering arrangements for conflicted remuneration, with Labor's bill coming into effect a full year before the Coalition's legislation".
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019 implements recommendation 2.4 of the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, a commission that the government was reluctant to agree to—and it appears, from the timetable of legislation, a commission that the government has been reluctant to legislate for. The bill does end grandfathered remuneration arrangements for financial advisers. Conflicted remuneration, including commissions and volume based fees, can drive advisers to make poor recommendations to clients, leaving them worse off.
To understand the context of this legislation, it's helpful to go back to the section of the act that it amends and to understand the reason that there were exceptions to that section within the act. This bill will ultimately amend section 963A of the Corporations Act, which defines and deals with conflicted remuneration. Conflicted remuneration is defined within that section of the act as:
… any benefit, whether monetary or non-monetary, given to a financial services licensee, or a representative of a financial services licensee, who provides financial product advice to persons as retail clients that, because of the nature of the benefit or the circumstances in which it is given:
(a) could reasonably be expected to influence the choice of financial product recommended by the licensee or representative to retail clients; or
(b) could reasonably be expected to influence the financial product advice given to retail clients by the licensee or representative.
What we have there in the Corporations Act is a prohibition upon conflicted remuneration for financial services licensees.
What is the purpose of this legislation? It is to remove the exceptions that were inserted within that section of the corporations law at the time it was introduced. Those of us who've been around this place for some time would remember that the Future of Financial Advice legislation, which was introduced by the previous Labor government, instituted the ban on conflicted remuneration. But members opposite, who were then the opposition, together with their friends within the financial services, were hell-bent on frustrating at every turn these provisions, these bans being inserted into the corporations law, and were equally concerned to ensure that wherever possible they could have inserted within the legislation certain exceptions. In shorthand, there were grandfathered provisions which applied to contracts or advice that had already been instituted prior to the passage and operative date of effect of this legislation.
We have seen through the Hayne royal commission the impact that these grandfathered remuneration arrangements have had. We've seen through the Hayne royal commission the impact of conflicted advice. If you read the final report of the royal commissioner, you can see example after example of where the interests of the financial adviser were conflicted with those for whom they were providing advice to—that is, the adviser has put their own interests ahead of the interests of the clients that they were advising. Where that has occurred, we've also seen the institutional impact of that. I'll pick one example to illustrate this. In the case of NULIS Nominees, the NAB subsidiary charged with overseeing the MLC superannuation funds, Commissioner Hayne found that the trustees may have breached their duty to act in the best interests of trustees by maintaining grandfathered commissions. They took this decision not on the basis of the amounts being paid to members but on the basis that dissatisfied financial advisers deprived of their commissions might withdraw clients from the fund. It is a clear instance where there was a clear conflict between the interests of the fund members and the interests of the advisers and where it was driving behaviour about where to invest money. And I can say that we are not talking about small sums of money.
Just a few more examples. When Westpac, to their credit, decided to end, ahead of this legislation, grandfathered conflicted remunerations, they advised that the annual cost of ceasing those conflicted remuneration payments would be $40.8 million. I'll repeat that—$40.8 million annually. That is $40.8 million annually that probably should have been going to the benefit of the fund members but instead was being paid, quite lawfully—I make no criticism; it was quite lawfully being paid—to the financial advisers. When the Commonwealth Bank of Australia decided to end their conflicted remuneration arrangements, they estimated that the annual hit to their revenue through the cessation of these conflicted remuneration arrangements would be $20 million per annum. So these are two financial institutions where $60 million per annum in money that should have been going to the benefit of the advised client was going ultimately to the benefit of the Commonwealth Bank and Westpac bank. There are other financial institutions in a similar situation. NAB, through the example that I have cited, has serious questions to answer to APRA. As Commissioner Hayne has said, case studies like these show that there is no case for these arrangements to be maintained any longer.
The bill also provides for regulations to establish a scheme that will require grandfathered remuneration to be passed to the retail clients where those commissions are still being paid. This is important, because in the two examples I've previously cited—in the case of Westpac and in the case of the CBA—the cessation of that grandfathered remuneration is not in itself enough. We need to ensure that that money is being returned to the benefit of the customers, who ultimately should be benefiting from that commission. This is an appropriate use of the regulations. It provides the flexibility to make detailed rules on the pass-through of grandfathered commissions and to react to changing industry circumstances and the enormous variation in circumstances in the grandfathered provisions paid.
Labor will be supporting this bill. As we've said at every opportunity, Labor are committed to seeing every single one of Commissioner Hayne's recommendations acted upon, and we'll be holding this lazy, part-time government to account to ensure that each and every one of these recommendations are implemented. The government, after all, voted 26 times against holding the royal commission; we can have no faith in their vigour, energy and enthusiasm for implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. According to the government's own implementation road map, only eight of the 76 recommendations have been implemented by the government since February—that is, if you give them credit for the three times that Commissioner Hayne explicitly recommended that the government do nothing. That is to say, of the eight recommendations that they are taking credit for having implemented to date, three of them involved doing nothing. Those opposite are very good at doing nothing.
Labor tabled a bill in this House in February this year that would have done what Commissioner Hayne had recommended in ending the conflicted grandfathered remuneration. Had that bill been dealt with, as Labor offered the government at that time, the ending of that grandfathered remuneration would have been implemented a full year before. I want you to think about the numbers that I gave a little earlier in my contribution—$40 million per annum in respect of Westpac customers and $20 million per annum in respect of CBA customers. If those figures are representative across the entire industry, we are talking about a lot of money indeed.
In June last year, Westpac announced that it would remove grandfathered commissions on the accounts of 140,000 clients. In August last year, the ANZ announced that it would start rebating commissions to clients on the OnePath platform. In September of last year, the NAB said that it would start rebating grandfathered commissions to its own clients, and in October of last year, the Commonwealth Bank also followed suit. You have to ask yourself this: if the banks can act quickly to do this, why can't the government? Why can't the government introduce legislation on an abridged timetable to ensure that this conflicted remuneration is no longer being paid?
The truth is that the coalition never wanted to deliver these reforms and they were never committed to reforms to the financial advice sector. Indeed, if the coalition had their way, these arrangements would have never been banned in the first place. They opposed the FOFA reforms and they have opposed every reform since then. It was the coalition who would now have you believe that they are on the same side as consumers, when they rolled back the reforms that were introduced by Labor when they won government in 2004.
The safety and security of consumers in the financial sector have frankly never been the priority of this government. Take for example the government's botched reforms to the professional standards in the advice sector. It is a very good case study. Since the government established the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority 2½ years ago, it has gone through three CEOs. It has been consistently late in delivering key legislative instruments and guidance, causing confusion and concern throughout the sector. It has been slow to consult with industry and consumer advocates.
The government has now admitted its own abysmal failure in rolling out the reforms to professional standards within the financial advice sector and has admitted that its own failure means it is going to have to delay the implementation of these critical reforms. What does that mean? It means simply this: there will be another two years where consumers won't be able to have the certainty that the advice that they receive is being delivered by professionals with the right qualifications. It is another example where the government has simply shown that it has no desire to make the common-sense fixes in broken parts of our financial advising system. When the government is finally forced to act by Labor and by pressure from the Australian community, it can't be trusted to get it right. So we will be carefully watching the implementation of this legislation to make sure the government doesn't botch it as well as the former reforms.
This legislation should not be seen as the end of the road. Anyone providing conflicted remuneration anywhere within the financial services sector has to know that they are now on notice, that they're in the eyes of the Australian people and reform is coming. Labor agrees with Commissioner Hayne: every exception to the ban on conflicted remuneration needs to be thoroughly examined. As Commissioner Hayne has said, intermediaries should always be expected to act in the best interests of their clients. In fact, he used the analogy that the person who attempts to stand in two canoes simply fails. Ends to exemptions for listed investment trusts, life insurance and other products are all on notice as well. ASIC will be conducting a review into these sectors as well, and they simply have to shape up.
We'll not stand by while ordinary Australians are pushed into bad products due to shonky commissions. In particular, we'll be watching very carefully to see what happens when ASIC reviews the insurance commissions in 2021. If there is a good case for them to be maintained, so be it, but you can expect Labor to ensure that these conflicts of interest do not persist.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
In summing up, firstly I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019 amends the Corporations Act to implement a key recommendation of the landmark Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
This bill will end the payment of grandfathered conflicted remuneration to financial advisers, with effect from 1 January 2021. Conflicted remuneration refers to remuneration paid to financial advisers by product issuers, which can influence the advice that they provide to retail clients about the product. When the ban on conflicted remuneration was introduced, in 2013, already existing arrangements to pay this remuneration to financial advisers were grandfathered, so the ban did not apply to them. It has now been six years since that ban was introduced; however, grandfathered conflicted remuneration remains a part of the financial advice industry. There is a clear need to end these grandfathered conflicted remuneration arrangements in the financial advice industry. As Commissioner Hayne said in the royal commission's final report, it is now clear that they have outlived their validity. Australians need to be able to access high-quality financial advice that they can trust, and this is critical to maintaining their financial wellbeing.
Grandfathered conflicted remuneration compromises this objective by entrenching customers in older, poorly performing products. This is because financial advisers may be unwilling to switch customers into newer, better products if it means the adviser will lose their entitlement to the grandfathered conflicted remuneration. To be clear, the total value of grandfathered conflicted remuneration is substantial. When ASIC looked at the value of grandfathered benefits in 2014, it found that on average licensees indicated that grandfathered benefits were worth around one-third of their total income, though substantially more or less than the average in some cases. More recently, the Productivity Commission found that 11 retail superannuation funds are estimated to have paid more than $400 million in grandfathered trailing adviser commissions in 2017.
Retail clients will be the major winners from this reform. The government's actions will mean they will receive higher quality advice and stop paying higher fees to fund grandfathered conflicted remuneration. The measures in this bill will not only end the payment of grandfathered conflicted remuneration; they will go further and require that any grandfathered benefits that remain in contracts after 1 January 2021 be passed on to the affected customers. This will ensure that the entities required to pay grandfathered conflicted remuneration, financial product manufacturers, are not able to keep benefits they would normally pay to financial advisers. The benefits must flow to customers.
ASIC will investigate industry behaviour in the period of 1 July 2019 to 1 January 2021 to determine whether the industry is passing through the benefits of removing grandfathered conflicted remuneration to consumers. They will complement action that we've already taken to drive improved consumer outcomes in the financial sector and ensure that misconduct in the sector is punished. This government is getting on with the job of delivering on the required reforms to improve consumer and small-business outcomes in the financial sector. Restoring trust in Australia's financial sector is part of our plan for a stronger economy. I commend this bill to the House.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to. A division is required. In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to support the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Extend Family Assistance to ABSTUDY Secondary School Boarding Students Aged 16 and Over) Bill 2019. I also move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) students from remote areas do not have access to the high school education options taken for granted in cities;
(b) while boarding school works well for some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, it is not the best option for many others—taking students away from family, community, country and language;
(c) there are many reasons for the high turnover of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students at boarding school, including levels of cultural awareness and understanding; and
(d) the lack of secondary school options closer to home contributes to the gap in high school completion rates; and
(2) calls on the Government to increase investment in public and community school options that are closer to home, and will allow more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to finish high school".
Education is critical to improving quality of life and life outcomes. We all believe that. I've heard it said many times not only in this chamber but across the whole spectrum of the education arena. I am very fortunate to have come from an education background. I started my career out, believe it or not—a very long time ago; I won't say when—in Mount Druitt as a teacher at Lethbridge Park—
Hear, hear!
And we have the member here in the chamber. That really gave me a very clear understanding, particularly in an area back in the late seventies to early eighties like Lethbridge Park, which was extremely disadvantaged. There was no infrastructure there; it was basically a school and the beginning of a shopping centre.
Our social security system has an important role to play in providing the relevant supports necessary to ensure that all children have the opportunity to access education. Unfortunately in Australia—which is just remarkable, particularly in a First World, wealthy nation—not all children have access to an education. In particular, many children living in remote communities, mostly Aboriginal children, do not have access to secondary education, which is why I have moved this amendment, and I'll speak about that in a moment.
As I said, our social security system has an important role to play in providing the relevant supports necessary to make sure that all children have the opportunity to access education. That is why Labor is supporting this bill, although with the circulated amendments as I've indicated. There is evidence that the current rules, which withdraw family tax benefits when children at boarding school turn 16, put enormous financial pressure on some families. Many of the families that we're talking about are very much without the resources and the funds to be able to bear the withdrawal of family tax benefits for children over the age of 16 at secondary school.
The simple fact is that there are two tiers of children—Aboriginal children in particular, as this bill goes to the heart of—that access boarding school. There are those children in remote communities that have no secondary school to go to, and their only alternative to go to secondary school is to leave home and travel, often to capital cities or larger towns, like Darwin, Broome, Alice Springs and such places. But there is also a group of Aboriginal children that go to elite boarding schools—the King's and Scots of the world. This piece of legislation applies to both of those groups of children. I have to say that the ideal is a quality secondary education for children in their home community, if that is at all possible, because that makes sure that children stay connected to family, connected to culture and connected to country. However, the reality is that that is not always possible, hence the importance of this piece of legislation.
This withdrawing of family tax benefits when a child at boarding school turns 16 does put pressure on families. This has resulted, I am loath to say, in unfavourable unintended outcomes. Some students and families are forced into withdrawing students from school to maintain access to the family tax benefit and to make ends meet. This is an untenable situation and it must be changed, and that's what this piece of legislation goes to doing. As parents know, children do not get cheaper as they get older—I'm sure that many of us can attest to that—and there are significant costs associated with children that attend boarding school: uniforms, shoes, clothes, excursions, pocket money, haircuts, sporting equipment and the list goes on. And that's not to mention that a number of the families that we are talking about will also be on income management or on the BasicsCard, which makes things even more challenging in some ways.
These costs don't stop just because a child is at boarding school or because they turn 16. Abstudy is important, and I note that this is the 50th year of Abstudy. I myself, as a secondary student, was in receipt of Abstudy, albeit very different to what it is now. But I do remember that as a secondary school student.
A Senate inquiry into this bill indicated widespread support for the changes in this bill, which is why it is welcomed by the Labor Party. However, the Senate inquiry did raise a number of other issues that this bill will not change, but which it does have the potential, if the amendments are supported, to make some difference to. It also exposed some issues with the administration of Abstudy, including the following issues. There is the lack of secondary school options in local communities, or closer to communities. Obviously, that is a major issue for both federal and state jurisdictions. Another issue that parents raised directly about Abstudy was the complexity of the Abstudy system. There are seven Abstudy award types, or eligibility triggers, and 12 separate payments. It seems to me that that could well be simplified. I could outline those payments, but I think people probably know them already.
There were also administrative delays in commencing Abstudy payments for children without immunisation or birth certificates. I think that the department needs to become much more realistic and have an alternative view about this. For many Aboriginal children from remote communities, these two things are extremely onerous. Many Aboriginal people in remote communities, and many Aboriginal people across the board, do not have birth records and they are extremely difficult to come by. The other thing is that the paperwork for immunisation records are in a similar vein. Those two issues are something that I'd really encourage the government to focus on in terms of Abstudy. There are administrative ways to deal with this, and I'm sure that it is within the department's ambit to think about alternatives or ways in which to deal with those particular issues so that students can commence Abstudy more quickly. A sensible way to do it would be to put students on Abstudy automatically and require those records at a later date or as soon as possible. But there is no reason to have the onus on the production of those records, without which, as I said, children can't start. That's something that I would encourage the government to look at very closely.
The other thing is something that I think is a communication issue, and it is about the lack of accessible communication with families in remote areas about the actual availability of Abstudy and how it works. That is a communication issue. I'm not saying it by way of criticism; I'm saying that it is something that seems, to me, to be really important in the administration of Abstudy. And one would think, particularly in those isolated communities, that it is not so difficult. It would also be applicable, I think, in many regional communities and probably city locations as well.
The other thing, for many parents, is that the Abstudy payment is made directly to the school. I'm not arguing about that, but I'm saying that many parents think that the school, in some cases, is not accountable enough to receive those funds, and it seems to me that schools should be able to meet those requirements. I'm sure that many do, but for some schools the payment is not adequate. I'm talking about a different subject—that is, the inadequacy of payments. In some schools, the payment is not adequate to cover boarding costs. That might be something that Abstudy could look at carefully, and obviously the amendments that Labor is moving go to many of the issues that I've actually outlined.
The 2019 Closing the gap report found that school attendance targets were not on track, and that is a target that is so important as school attendance can change life outcomes for young Indigenous students. The target was to close the gap in school attendance by 2018, which, of course, was last year. As a nation, we have missed this target—missed it well and truly. There have been no improvements in school attendance targets between 2014 and 2018. It seems to me that the funds that have already been spent have been very well intentioned, I'm sure, but, in terms of school attendance, these funds need to be redeployed; there needs to be a fresh eye on school attendance. I accept, and I've always argued, that there are multiple responsibilities in a child's school attendance. It is a government responsibility. It is a community responsibility. It is also a family responsibility. It seems to me there is an awful lot of work to be done in that, because if children are not at school, if they're not attending, then their life choices and chances are going to be very much curtailed. And we're not talking about people who are in the latter years of secondary school; we're talking about right across the school system. Many children are simply lost to the system, and that seems to be something that should be a priority for both state and federal governments. This gap is unacceptable; I don't think there would be anyone who would argue against that. Also, the progress is unacceptable. We all need to do much better.
The overall attendance rate for Aboriginal students is 82 per cent, compared to 93 per cent for non-Indigenous students, so there is a gap of over 10 per cent in attendance rates. The gap in school attendance is evident from when children start school. As I said earlier, during primary school the attendance gap was around eight percentage points in 2018. Attendance falls when students reach secondary school, particularly for Indigenous students, and the attendance gap widens to 14 percentage points. We all know that the outcomes in schooling are extremely wide. In part, it is due to the attendance that I'm talking about. In remote areas, school attendance by Indigenous students is lower and the attendance gap is larger. I went to a remote community a few weeks ago. I went to one of the schools, and the attendance at that school that day was 30 per cent. That is not acceptable in anyone's terms, and it is just another indication of the challenges in school participation. The 2018 attendance rate for Indigenous students ranged from 86 per cent in inner regional areas to 63 per cent in very remote areas. In remote areas, as I said, the attendance gap is larger, demonstrated by that particular figure.
This week, we read reports that the federal government has cut funding to 100 remote school jobs in the Kimberley region. This is mind-boggling. That is 100 jobs in community schools in the Kimberley, yet the government put up their hands and say, 'This is where we're focusing.' Today—a national reminder—is World Suicide Prevention Day, and the Kimberley, of course, is one of the focus areas for the government in preventing youth suicide. The Prime Minister, I think, has spoken very genuinely about his distress in relation to young Aboriginal children taking their lives. So it seems unbelievable to me that the focus for the government's suicide prevention trial is the Kimberley, and at the same time it would remove 100 Aboriginal workers from schools in the Kimberley. It just does not make any sense to me.
The funding allowed remote community residents to provide services such as specialised language teachers, ground maintenance and other support roles. We know remote schools experience many difficulties presented by geographical isolation as it is, without the added burden of federal funding cuts perpetrated by the government. The schools that we're talking about are in very remote locations, and these locations are where children don't actually have access to secondary school, so it is very difficult to understand why there would be a cut to this particular region of 100 workers in remote community schools. We know that remote schools experience many difficulties presented by geographical isolation, as I said, so it is just very difficult to understand.
Last week we had Indigenous Literacy Day, and this year is the International Year of Indigenous Languages. All Australians should have equal access to literacy resources, especially those children living in communities. First Nation Australians should have the opportunity to learn language and culture. Language and culture are integral to improving Indigenous literacy outcomes. It is also true to say that language and culture are integral to life outcomes for First Nations people, and strengthening identity and a connection to culture is an imperative to improving Indigenous quality-of-life outcomes, as I indicated. It is really disappointing the government has ended federal funding for, among other things, these specialised language services.
I call on the minister and the government to reverse these cuts to make sure that children have the opportunity to learn in their own language as well as in English, because there is clear evidence that, when children can learn their language, they do better at school. They simply feel at home, and that is the foundation of trust, of exploration and ultimately of learning.
It is also worth mentioning that these remote schools were funded through the government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy, which has come under immense scrutiny from the Auditor-General, who raised serious questions about administration of the strategy and its funding decisions, which have seen $4.8 billion spent over five years. I don't believe the Indigenous Advancement Strategy should be the funding source for specialised positions within schools. If it is to be. then there should be an ongoing view to these specialised positions, particularly, as I have said, in light of access to secondary education, in light of these very small schools being under-resourced and in light of the participation rates of First Nations children.
Labor is calling on the government to do more, because going away to boarding school is not always the right option for many children. We need to invest in more options at home and closer to home. No-one should miss out on a great education because of where they live, but unfortunately we are living in a nation where that is the case. I think many people out in the broader community would be absolutely shocked that there are children in Australia who do not have access to secondary education unless they move great distances from their home. I'm not arguing that boarding schools aren't important. Of course they are; they're absolutely fundamental—both the boarding schools that many of the children in remote communities go to and the more elite boarding schools that many Aboriginal families elect for students to go to. At least this piece of legislation corrects an anomaly, and once a child turns 16 and they're at boarding school the family tax benefit will continue.
While it suits some students and their families, as I said, boarding school does not work for others. It takes young people away from family, community, culture and language, and for many young people this is an extremely difficult transition. In many instances it exposes them to discrimination and bullying, as we heard during the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. For many students we need more public and community schooling options that are close to home and culturally appropriate for Indigenous students from remote areas.
We also need to make sure that when students go to boarding school it is a positive experience. I have spoken to many Aboriginal students who are attending boarding schools through a number of programs that exist, and they are having positive experiences and they are extremely excited about their future. But we cannot do that at the expense of students and families that elect to remain in their communities. We need to make sure that it is a positive experience and we also need to make sure that all boarding schools attended by students from remote communities have the cultural understanding to support students. I know that there are many schools that are making enormous efforts in this regard, but in some cases, I'm afraid, it isn't always the positive experience that we would want for students.
Going away to school can be tough on any young person—I've never been to boarding school, so I can't talk from experience—and potentially even more so when you are from a remote community and English is your second or third language, which is the case with many Aboriginal children from remote communities. Abstudy has allowed thousands of students from remote communities to get a great education at boarding school and complete year 12. I know that in many cases if it had not been for Abstudy then year 12 completion would have been extremely difficult. The changes in this bill are a step in the right direction, and Labor does support them. They will enable more young Indigenous students from remote communities to reach their potential. Every young Indigenous student should be able to write their own story of success and achievement, like the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students before them, no matter where they live or what school they go to.
Is the amendment seconded?
Yes, it is, and I reserve my right to speak.
I'm pleased to rise to sum up in this second reading debate on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Extend Family Assistance to ABSTUDY Secondary School Boarding Students Aged 16 and Over) Bill 2019, which is being introduced to implement a measure announced as part of the 2019-20 budget.
In the budget, the government announced that it would extend family tax benefit to the families of Abstudy students who board away from home to attend secondary school. This will remove the existing perverse incentive for Indigenous students to drop out of school at age 16. I thank the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its report on the bill and its recommendation that the bill be passed.
Under current arrangements, once an Abstudy boarding student turns 16 he or she no longer attracts family tax benefit. This creates a perverse incentive for families to retain family tax benefit by removing their child from boarding school. This is a policy normally that is not aligned with the government's objective of supporting Indigenous students to complete year 12. Many remote communities have no local secondary school, so boarding is frequently the only option for children to go to secondary school. However, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boarding students are disproportionately dropping out of boarding education around the age of 16. Data from the Department of Human Services shows that the number of Abstudy boarding students drops by approximately 60 per cent between the ages of 15 and 17.
The Prime Minister's 2019 Closing the Gap address to parliament emphasised that access to quality education for Indigenous students in remote and very remote areas can be a lifeline to future prosperity and wellbeing. This statement echoed the views of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs in its 2017 report on Indigenous education, which stressed the importance of education but found room for improvement in the support of Indigenous boarding students.
Amendments introduced by this bill will build on the 2018-19 budget measure '50 years of Abstudy', which provided $38.1 million over five years to improve assistance for Indigenous secondary students who need to study away from home. It includes better, fairer and more flexible travel provisions and the portability of Abstudy benefits if students change schools. This bill will extend family tax benefit to eligible secondary students aged 16 years and over who receive Abstudy assistance to study away from home. These changes will commence on 1 January 2020, subject to the timing of the passage of this bill. Extending family tax benefit to Abstudy boarding students is consistent with broader family tax benefit rules. It also aligns with recommendations from the 2014 Forrest review Creating parity.
Currently, families of Indigenous boarding students aged under 16 are generally eligible for both Abstudy and family tax benefit. Abstudy for these students is paid directly to the school and boarding provider to cover tuition and boarding costs, while family tax benefit is paid to the family to help with the cost of raising children. Families rely on family tax benefit to meet the ongoing costs of their children's daily incidentals while they are away at school, as well as their living costs when they're at home during school holidays. Once the student turns 16, family assistance legislation precludes Abstudy students from receiving family tax benefit, leaving families with no assistance for the cost of everyday essentials for the child. The loss of family tax benefit when a boarding student turns 16 is a significant drop in income support for families, which contributes to financial pressure for families at a critical stage in a young person's education. Modelling using the priority investment approach shows Abstudy students who stay in boarding for their senior schooling are less likely to need income support in the future. Changes introduced by this bill will mean that, from 1 January 2020, families of Indigenous boarding students will stay in the family tax benefit system until their child reaches the end of secondary school. The families of more than 2,000 Indigenous secondary students will benefit from these changes. On average, these families would receive an additional $5,911 per year.
Through these changes, the government is delivering an additional $36.4 million in support over the next four years. This investment will contribute to increasing the proportion of Indigenous students who complete year 12, improving their work prospects and lifetime wellbeing and reversing the potential cost to the community that comes with long-term unemployment and welfare dependency.
In summary, this bill allows for the implementation of measures that will extend family tax benefit to the families of Abstudy students who need to board away from home to attend secondary school. I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
After all the shocks and sadness we have recently heard throughout the banking royal commission, I am sad to say that the Commonwealth Bank does not seem to have changed its attitude towards its social responsibilities. This is the same bank that made an $8.6 billion profit last year, and the community is rightly angry at the cruel corporate decision to close the ATM at Bomaderry on the New South Wales South Coast. This ATM was the only 24-hour ATM service available in Bomaderry. It was located at the end of the train line, where commuters must have access to cash outside business hours to use public transport. Elderly people and those with a disability were also dependent on this service as their primary source of cash.
I wrote to the CEO of the bank to implore him to reverse this heartless decision. In my letter, I outlined the social consequences for my community of the decision he has made, and I invited him to attend a community meeting in Bomaderry to hear from locals about how this impacts on them. I was extremely disappointed that my offer was refused and that the bank has decided not to face up to the consequences. It is very easy for banks to put their own interests before that of the community, without fully considering how this will impact on those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged. Hundreds of people have signed my petition calling on the Commonwealth Bank to save this ATM, and I stand with them. I urge the Commonwealth Bank to reconsider my offer to meet with the community, or, even better— (Time expired)
World Suicide Prevention Day raises awareness of the leading cause of death for Australians aged 15 to 44. Many Australians live with the emptiness of losing a loved one and the questions that follow. As members in this place will know, no family is immune. The member for Berowra delivered a moving reminder in his first speech, and, a little over a year ago, a tragedy befell my family with the loss of my brother-in-law, Shane Bolger. No honour can comfort Sandra and John for the loss of their son; Robert and Joe for their stepson; Marie for her grandson; Ros and Jeff for their nephew; Katrina, Meaghan and Sally for their cousin; and Ryan for his brother. There will always be sadness from the love not shared, even though we give thanks for the love that was. It's a reminder that prevention sits on all of our shoulders. So on World Suicide Prevention Day we do shine a light. Our responsibility, year-round, is to extend an open hand in the hope that others won't follow.
Last month I had the honour and privilege of meeting the Cambodian democratic activist and leader of the Cambodia National Rescue Movement, Mr Sam Rainsy. Mr Rainsy, accompanied by a group of Cambodian activists, came to speak to me about the troubling situation in Cambodia. Representatives along the political spectrum in both this and the other house have expressed very serious concerns about the recent Cambodian elections. In the lead-up to the 2018 poll, the main opposition party, Mr Rainsy's CNRP, was banned and its then leader Kem Sokha was arrested. A crackdown on the press also occurred, with a number of independent radio stations and newspapers shut down. I echo the words of some of my colleagues by labelling the 2018 Cambodian ballot as a sham election. With a slide to authoritarianism, Cambodia has also seen a marked increase in corruption. Transparency International's 2018 Corruption Perception Index rated Cambodia 161 out of 180 nations.
The Labor Party has long supported a peaceful and democratic Cambodia. Then foreign minister Gareth Evans was instrumental in brokering the 1991 peace accord. Many of the local Cambodian community in my electorate arrived as refugees, and they were on hand to see Mr Rainsy. I wish him all the best when he goes back to Cambodia in November.
I rise to update the House on the cashless debit card trial outcomes in the Goldfields region, in my electorate of O'Connor. I give this update in light of uninformed claims in the media regarding the practicalities of the card. The member for Watson was widely quoted claiming businesses would need to sign up for the card, which he said would be detrimental to small businesses. This statement could not be further from the truth. The cashless welfare card can be used anywhere with EFTPOS facilities without the need to sign up but will reject transactions that involve alcohol and gambling products. The member for Watson is getting the cashless debit card confused with the BasicsCard.
The fact is we've seen positive outcomes in the Goldfields following the rollout of the cashless debit card trial. The University of Adelaide released its cashless debit card baseline data report in February, which supports the anecdotal feedback from the shires of Coolgardie, Laverton, Leonora, Menzies and the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. They reported 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 antisocial behaviour. The Kalgoorlie-Boulder chamber of commerce provided a submission to the Senate inquiry into the cashless welfare bill. Eighty-seven per cent of respondents said that they believe there were positive changes in Kalgoorlie-Boulder and that they want to see the trial continue. Given the outstanding results I have witnessed firsthand, I wholeheartedly support the national rollout of this program, and I urge the opposition to stop playing politics and to take note of the positive evidence.
The wind storms at the weekend have heightened fears for people who live in and around Bilpin. While fires burnt just across the mountains, they lost power and they lost phone coverage and, in the early hours of the morning, the backup batteries for the mobile phone tower died. So there was a group of people who had no communication whatsoever for more than 14 hours. As the Bilpin Rural Fire Brigade wrote to me, even more concerning was the fact that the SOS function wasn't available. Residents were unable to contact emergency services or access the SMS alert system. So, had there been an incident—a car accident or a bushfire—they had no way of getting word out, and the Bilpin Rural Fire Service had no way of activating its volunteers. In fact, they had to turn down a request from Hawkesbury fire control to provide a team for the Tenterfield fires because they simply couldn't contact members.
Remember, in 2013 Bilpin had to deal with the impact of fire, isolation and extensive power outages as a result of the State Mine fire. It isn't good enough that the backup batteries at the Telstra tower in Bilpin need to be immediately replaced with a generator before it contributes to a fatality. And they're not alone. Throughout my electorate we need better mobile coverage. Some places don't have any. I want to give a shout-out to every Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains rural fire brigade volunteer who's headed north to help fight the fires. Our thoughts are with you.
Vision Australia estimates that there are 384,000 people in Australia who are blind or who have low vision. For these people, participating in sport is often hugely difficult as few sports are adapted to be inclusive of people who aren't fully sighted. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting with Maurice Gleeson, the president of Blind Sports & Recreation Victoria, in my electorate of Higgins. We discussed the work that this organisation is doing to deliver transformative change to the lives of blind and low-vision Victorians through sport. Blind Sports & Recreation Victoria started 10 years ago with the mission of making sport more accessible and inclusive. They set out not only to promote traditional low-vision sports such as swish, goalball and blind cricket—I'm happy to explain to anyone what those are—but also to adapt sports like tennis and football to be accessible to the blind and vision impaired. One example is the organisation's swimming program, which, through tactile education, gives blind and vision impaired children the ability to learn to swim and then more often than not to join their fully sighted local swim team. The organisation seeks to continue to change any perception in the sports community from what we can do for the blind and vision impaired to what we can do with them. I am proud to support the work being done by Blind Sports & Recreation Victoria.
Today, Tuesday 10 September, is World Suicide Prevention Day and this Thursday is R U OK? Day. The theme of World Suicide Prevention Day 2019 is working together to prevent suicide and has been chosen internationally as it highlights the most essential ingredient for suicide prevention: collaboration. In my community on the New South Wales Central Coast, the Iris Foundation has created the Tree of Dreams. A tree in the grounds of the Wyong Milk Factory is adorned with hundreds of colourful tags sharing messages of hope, strength, support and remembrance from people whose lives have been impacted by suicide. On Sunday, the Iris Foundation, alongside the Tree of Dreams, held River of Reflections. As the sun set, people wrote messages on paper lanterns and floated them down the Wyong River to honour and respect those lost, their lives lived and their love and the gifts they gave.
On 12 September the local Lions Club will hold a free barbecue to raise awareness about mental health in the workplace. Local events held across Australia this week help to foster hope, break down stigma and isolation and create healthier communities. As they say with R U Okay? Day, you don't need to be an expert to reach out; you just need to be a good friend and a great listener.
Today I would like to speak with you about a fantastic initiative called Fishability QLD. It was founded by Emma Dyson. As a former support worker, it was Emma's love of fishing and working with the vulnerable that inspired her to start Fishability QLD three years ago. This great not-for-profit organisation does so much to support people in the community who are disadvantaged physically, financially, mentally and culturally. Fishability QLD provides a range of socially inclusive fishing opportunities for people who are vulnerable, disadvantaged and at risk of social isolation.
Without support and assistance, social isolation can impact on people's ability to participate in the community. It can contribute to or exacerbate depression, anxiety and loneliness and further impact people's lives, leading to homelessness, suicidal ideation and substance abuse. Fishability QLD aims to offer a broad range of fishing related activities that will build the confidence and skills of participants, offer opportunities, develop lasting friendships and broader social groups, and be fun.
Fishability QLD is partnered with Robyn Tomkins of Bribie Island Boat Charters, who provides one full week of free boat hire so that Fishability QLD and their participants can take the boats out into the Pumicestone Passage once every six weeks to fish in their year-long fishing competition. It's so important to create a connected and cohesive community, so I am pleased to support this great initiative.
There's not a member in this House whose community has not been impacted by the devastating effects of suicide. Communities across the nation have suffered the same sense of loss, grief and confusion whenever one of their own chooses to take their own life. In my electorate of Warringah, our community is impacted like all others, with vulnerable groups, including our young people, middle aged men and our young veterans, most at risk.
This morning Suicide Prevention Australia released their report Turning Points: imagine a world without suicide. The report details that in the last decade suicide rates have increased across the nation. On this, national Suicide Prevention Day 2019, I wish to acknowledge the widespread good work done to reduce the rate of suicide by formal organisations in the health and welfare sector, but also the more informal work of our schools, workplaces and community groups. We need to ensure that small organisations also have access to funding.
In Warringah, I'd like to commend the suicide prevention work of a number of organisations, including Gotcha4Life, Heart On My Sleeve, the Veterans Centre Sydney Northern Beaches, Community Care Northern Beaches, Lifeline and headspace, to name but a few. I also want to commend the Morrison government for their towards zero ambition for suicide rates in Australia and for their recent appointment of a suicide prevention special adviser within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. All of us need to play our part to help support resilience in our communities and work towards a goal of zero.
Rugby union has a proud history in my electorate. One of the oldest clubs on the North Shore, indeed in Australia, is the Hunters Hill Rugby Club. The Hillies, as they are better known, have been playing rugby since 1892. 2019 has been an exceptional year for the club. I want to pay tribute to all the players, coaches and volunteers who have contributed to the club's success. This year the Hillies came second in the suburban rugby club championship, with all four of the senior men's grades contesting the grand finals. The fourth and second grade teams took out their premierships, with the first and third grade teams going down in very tough deciders. I joined the supporters for the first grade match. It was an exciting game, with only one point in the final result. In junior rugby the club won three of the four grand finals it contested.
I want to particularly acknowledge the club for its development of women's rugby. In only their third year, the Hunters Hill women's rugby team were crowned second division champions, which points to their successful growth.
Clubs like Hunters Hill rely on the support of their volunteers. I acknowledge the incredible work of Board President Andrew Skelly, Seniors Chairman Luke McCormack, Women's Rugby Chair Lauren Salmon, Juniors Chairman Adam Latham and all their respective committees. And 2020 will be an even bigger year for the club with the commencement of the long awaited Boronia Park community facility, which is being supported by a $500,000 grant that I helped to secure from the federal government. I congratulate the club on what has been a great year.
I'm honoured to stand in this House today and honour the life of Elaine Darling, who was the member for Lilley from 1980 until 1993. She passed away on 30 August this year at the age of 83. After a standing start at the federal election in 1977, Elaine Darling was elected as member for Lilley on her second attempt in 1980. Shortly after her election she was faced with a true test when the northern suburbs of our electorate in Brighton were devastated by large fires that wreaked havoc on the community. Elaine rose to the occasion and did not eat, sleep or leave the area until she was assured that everybody had been looked after, everyone had somewhere to sleep that night and everyone's homes had been inspected and were going to be actioned if they needed repair.
Her son spoke proudly at her funeral of that moment in time and how, even though she was only elected by something like 1,000 votes in 1980, when she was re-elected in 1983 she was elected by something like 11,000 votes in her margin. The community absolutely loved her.
One of my favourite Elaine Darling stories is something that happened here. She was one of the first three women elected to the House of Representatives, and when they arrived in 1980 the custom was still to refer to the 'honourable gentlemen of the House'. When the Speaker did that, he asked the honourable gentlemen to sit, she remained standing. He asked her to explain herself, and she said, 'Sir, I am no gentleman.' The custom changed, and other things did too, and it was all due to her. Vale Elaine Darling.
Everyone in this room today knows that the one thing that people outside this room dislike the most about us is the fighting, the shouting at question time, the point scoring, the emphasis on style—if you could call it that—over substance. When we focus on fighting each other, rather than helping Australians, we don't look good.
Was there a time when our politicians worked together and not against each other, a time when policy was decided by consensus across the aisle, when the friendships we share in this place were not hidden behind a veil of poor behaviour? This time existed 50 years ago. On Fridays after sitting weeks, Prime Minister Bob Menzies and the Opposition Leader Arthur Calwell would meet for lunch and discuss good policy—not politics.
Next week we'll have an opportunity to learn from this time as Heather Henderson, nee Menzies, and Mary Elizabeth Calwell, daughters of the two great men, will be returning to parliament for a conversation mediated by Michelle Grattan. We'll hear insights into their famous fathers, how they worked together and if there are any lessons we can apply to this 46th Parliament. I look forward to seeing you all there in the Main Committee Room from 5 to 6 pm on Monday evening.
I wish to congratulate Mathew Harper from Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club, who was recently named the New South Wales Surf Lifesaver of the Year. I have known Matt for many years. He has been a member of Maroubra since he was a nipper. Although he's now only 24 years old, he's obtained nearly every single surf lifesaving accreditation and award, including the gold medallion.
Matt doesn't just do patrols. He also volunteers for the offshore rescue boat and surf rescue radio, and he's involved in many district and training activities. Matt's an Australian champion lifesaver, a medallist, a trainer, an assessor and a coach. And as club captain of Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club he's seen a record number of patrolling members achieve their 100 per cent patrol efficiency—that's a whole season without missing one hour of patrols. His award is great recognition for his hard work and dedication to our community.
On the eve of the surf season beginning, I'd like to also thank all of those thousands of volunteers that will don the red and yellow caps to keep us safe at the beach this season. The message is always: swim between the red and yellow flags. Congratulations to Matt. Our community is very proud of you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Can I begin by saying that today my thoughts are with the people of the Gold Coast hinterland with the fires engulfing them. Today marks World Suicide Prevention Day across the globe and provides an opportunity for everyone to share our grief about those lost and to share the responsibility that is for all of us in the community to prevent the unnecessary tragedy that is suicide.
Sadly, between 2013 and 2017 the suicide death rate on the Gold Coast was 14 lives per 100,000 people. This was higher than the national rate over the same period of 12 lives per 100,000 people. These numbers sadden me, but I, along with all Gold Coasters, should be buoyed that our government is making mental health a priority, delivering more than $60 million to the Gold Coast for the five-year period of 2016 to 2021 for various programs for mental health and suicide prevention.
The Albert Waterways Community Centre in Broadbeach Waters is today hosting an important World Suicide Prevention Day initiative where guest speakers will share their perspectives and initiatives for shining a light on suicide prevention support for Gold Coasters. I take this opportunity to recognise Southport headspace, also in my electorate, who are doing a wonderful job in improving the services for youth living with mental illness. The Morrison government is delivering over $1.1 million in this next year to the organisation for the services they are providing for those in our community in need of help. If you're feeling low and need to reach out, please call Lifeline on 131114.
The great people from Aussie Ark brought in some of our endangered species today, so I've just been out in one of our courtyards patting a koala. While I was patting a koala and holding a small devil, I had one of those moments that I think many people in my community feel now. I'm now bordering on despair, because there is so much to be done to protect Australia's environment from climate change and from species extinction, and we have a government in its third term that is essentially irrelevant to the debate. There are many people in my community who are so far ahead of this government, in terms of what they want for their local community and this country, and we have a government that unfortunately—we have to be honest about it—simply will not do what it needs to do.
I'm putting the call out to my community to go around this government. That's all we can do. We can get ready so, when we do have a government that's prepared to act, we have the small businesses and social enterprises ready and we have the knowledge, the relationships, the skills and the beginning of things to rapidly expand in the way we need to. We already have people in my community in Birds in Backyards and in Habitat Stepping Stones, and we also have WSROC's heat remediation strategy and a whole range of people in Bushcare groups. However, we also have a whole range of others who want to do the small things we need to do in recycling and biodiversity and renewables, but who don't know where to start. I'm saying to you: if this is what you care about, contact my office. I'll keep this list separate; you won't be spammed with political stuff. This is an action group, and let's get together in October and November and accelerate some of the ideas we have in our community to make a difference.
As local football competitions come to the conclusion of their seasons right around the country, I'd like to congratulate all of those involved in the AFL competitions in my electorate in particular: to those who reached their goals and those who will try again next year, to those who succeeded in winning premierships and those who didn't quite make it. It's a valuable thing in Australia that so many people participate in and, indeed, are observers of sport in its various manifestations right throughout this country.
I'd like to pay particular tribute to Peter Hookey, who comes to the end of his term as the president of the Warrandyte Football Club, in my electorate. Peter has been a great president of that club. He's seen it grow remarkably over the last few years, and as this season comes to an end, so too does his term as president of the club.
I was delighted to be able to join him recently at one of the matches. It was good to see the under-19 teams finish as runners-up in their eastern suburbs competition in Melbourne, and the club will continue to grow and thrive. I look forward in the future to seeing the installation of the new lights, which this government has funded through a $100,000 sports grant to the Warrandyte Football Club. That will enable training to occur on many more occasions in the evening and enable more people to be involved—particularly female competitors, with numbers growing stronger all the time.
I know I speak for everyone on this side of the chamber when I welcome the SDA's young leaders to our parliament. There are plenty in this chamber who have some pretty prejudiced things to say about the union movement, who it is and who it represents. They probably don't realise that the average union member in Australia is a woman in her 40s working in aged care—and she needs her union. The future of this great movement is in the gallery right now. The SDA's young leaders are from every corner of the city and the bush. They're diverse, and they're united by two things: they care passionately about their fellow workers, and they're willing to stand up and fight for their rights and to be treated fairly.
We face a lot of problems as a nation, but I know that, with the bright minds in front of us in the gallery turning their attention to these problems, we will have great progressive governments ahead who will work hand in hand with the union movement to ensure fairness and equity remain the bedrock of life in Australia. I say 'Well done!' to these marvellous young people. We really look forward to working with you in the future.
It's always the small but significant gestures of the members of our community that make a real difference in the lives of those around them. I'd like to take the time today to give recognition to one of my constituents in Bass, Anne Hamer, who works tirelessly making quilts to bring warmth to dialysis patients. What started as a one-off to keep her husband comfortable as he underwent treatment has turned into a passion project for Anne, who has lost count of the quilts she's made for patients at the Kings Meadows renal unit. The renal unit is increasingly busy, and I commend the Morrison government for its $10 million commitment to redeveloping and extending the Kings Meadows Community Health Centre, which houses the renal unit, in order to meet increased demand for renal and oral health services.
The social, cultural and economic value that volunteers, like Anne, bring to the local community needs to be heard. Anne is just one of approximately 400,000 volunteers in Tasmania who give their time in a way that positively contributes to the wellbeing of other individuals and communities. In Tasmania alone, volunteers donate over 7.1 million hours to the community annually, and it would cost an incredible $2.5 million to replace the work that they do. Patients who are undergoing treatment at the renal unit in Kings Meadows are comforted by the warmth of their quilt and by Anne's kindness. Thank you, Anne, for your contribution.
In November last year the Minister for Health promised Australia's type 1 diabetics that he would list flash glucose monitors on the National Diabetes Services Scheme on 1 March this year. His language was clear and it was undeniable. This was welcomed by Australia's type 1 diabetics because it would make the flash monitor affordable. Minister Hunt has reneged on his promise. He has not listed the flash glucose monitor and he's denying Australia's diabetics the choice they deserve. This isn't fair to Australians like Molly Lucas, a 10-year-old whom I met a few weeks ago, who is forced to use the old finger-prick technology when she would much rather use the flash monitor. That's why over 200,000 people have signed this petition to Minister Hunt to ask him to list the flash glucose monitor on the National Diabetes Services Scheme. This petition to Mr Hunt has been signed by 214,910 people.
The Prime Minister could instruct the Minister for Health to list the flash monitor as he promised to do. Why won't the government keep their commitments to Australia's diabetics and list the flash monitor on the national diabetes scheme? Why did this government mislead Australia's type 1 diabetics? Why won't this government give Australia's type 1 diabetics the choice they deserve? Two hundred and fourteen thousand people say this Minister for Health has not done well enough— (Time expired)
There's an issue. I'm sorry; the member for McMahon's time had expired and he hadn't actually sought to table the petition. We'll take it anyway. Just in case he's considering doing that again, he might want to table it at the start of his speech. The document will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with the standing orders.
I have a message for Michael McCormack particularly and for all members of this parliament, in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, who are dealing in their electorates with drought-affected communities. I know you've done a lot on behalf of people who are drought-affected—I know you have—but I can tell you that the people of the coast lands of this Great South Land won't be upset if you find it within your capability to do more on their behalf than we have done so far.
These are people who are suffering at this time in an inordinate way, and we know exactly how they feel. We feel their pain. We understand the longevity of this drought. If this government can push its way through to understanding whether there is more to do on their behalf—to you, Michael, and all who travel with you—in regional electorates then let this be the case. The people of the coast lands of this nation will back you. The people of the cities will back you. They will say: 'Do what you can for these people. Do what you can on their behalf.' It isn't just the lady on Facebook who spoke to Alan Jones; it is all the people out there in our rangelands, in the centres and in the regions that are doing it hard, and if you can find a way to give them more help then you will have the backing of all of the people of the coast lands of this Great South Land, Australia.
by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Dr the Honourable Alexander James (Jim) Forbes be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
I inform the House that the Minister for Defence Industry will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week, as she is in London leading the Australian delegation for the Defence and Security Equipment International conference. The Minister for Home Affairs will answer questions on her behalf.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. If the economy is going as well as he claims, why did business confidence and condition numbers get worse again today, and why are they well below the long-term average?
I am pleased to note that the confidence figures remain on the positive side of the ledger, and they remain on the positive side of the ledger despite the very complex and difficult challenges that the Australian economy faces. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition or the Labor Party, who have taken to talking down the economy, what we can see on this side of the House is the opportunity in the Australian economy and the way forward for the Australian economy. The way you take the Australian economy forward is that you don't hold it down with higher taxes that crush the spirit of Australians. The Labor Party still holds on to $387 billion of taxes they want to put on the Australian economy.
Opposition members interjecting—
I can hear the jeers of those opposite, who are saying, 'That's not the case!' Well, when are they going to let the Australian people in on the secret about what their view is on taxes?
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
I remind the Prime Minister that, by definition, that implies he's the government leader. He needs to be relevant. I asked about government policy—nothing to do with Labor. I know he's obsessed, but it's about the economy, business confidence and what the government's doing about it.
The Prime Minister has the call. I'm listening carefully. The question was—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Treasurer! Those members who have a tendency to interject when I'm seeking to rule on a subject are not helping anybody. The question asked about the economy and about specific statistics. I'm listening to the Prime Minister. He's entitled to compare and contrast if he relates the material to his answer, but it certainly didn't ask about opposition policy.
That's true, Mr Speaker. I was asked about confidence. I answered the question about confidence. At the last election, the Australian people expressed confidence in the economic plan that we took to the election. It was an economic plan that was about lowering taxes, that was about $100 billion in infrastructure investment, that was about expanding our export opportunities and that was about dealing with deregulation in the economy. Since the election we have announced that we are going to further deregulate measures that stymie investment and that we are working through the challenges that are faced in the industrial relations area. We took to the election our plan to keep the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Today Master Builders Australia are in the building; they're here at the moment. The Labor Party wanted to take away the rule of law in the building and construction industry, which would have taken people's jobs and rewarded union thugs like John Setka, who continues to stage a sit-in in the Victoria Labor Party. So whether it's the Setka sit-in in Victoria, the walkout of factions in Western Australia or the corruption we're seeing in the New South Wales Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition is presiding over a party that is chaos and confusion and even corruption.
The Leader of the Opposition, seeking to table a document?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is not helping the Leader of the Opposition, who is seeking to table a document?
Thanks, Mr Speaker. I am indeed: the NAB Monthly Business Survey August 2019, headed 'Below average confidence and conditions'.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I note that today is World Suicide Prevention Day. Will the Prime Minister please update the House about how the Morrison government is investing in improving the mental health of Australians and suicide prevention?
I thank the member for Berowra for his question and together with the member for Eden-Monaro for the work they do as part of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention. I thank the member for Berowra for his incredible strength and leadership on this issue in this place.
Speaking at the breakfast this morning, I had the sad duty to inform those who were there of a letter I recently received from a mum in Western Sydney. I had attended with Jenny the wedding of a friend. At that wedding we'd had a photo together with her and her husband and her three children. At the front of that photo was this bright, beaming young boy, Luke, who is yet another young Australian who has taken his own life in the last 12 months. This is a curse on our country. It's a curse that, together, all of us in this place I think are absolutely determined to break. I want to thank all of those in this House for the support they give to the very worthy goal we have of a towards-zero initiative on youth suicide and on suicide more generally.
More than 3,000 Australians took their lives in 2017. We have invested some $503 million in the youth mental health and suicide prevention plan. That is the largest suicide prevention plan that any government has ever put into practice: $375 million to expand and improve frontline headspace services; 20 new headspace sites for rural and regional Australia; new mental health telehealth services funded through the Medicare Benefits Schedule; $12 million to specifically support parents and their children, including helping parents recognise when their children are struggling; the funding of new mental health support services through our community health and hospitals program; and strengthening Indigenous youth suicide prevention efforts, backed with some $19.6 million to prevent Indigenous youth suicide, particularly in the Kimberley, and $22½ million in youth and Indigenous health research projects as part of the million minds mission.
These projects also include almost $3 million in funding for a wonderful organisation called batyr, whose work the member for Reid, the health minister and I had the privilege of seeing in action. It's absolutely extraordinary stuff. We were at Burwood Girls High School together as part of that workshop. That reached 171,000 young people. We've appointed Christine Morgan as the National Suicide Prevention Advisor. She's got a huge job to do and she's going to need all of our support to do it as she works right across government and works with state and territory leaders and their administrations. But, most importantly on World Suicide Prevention Day, we must tell Australians that, if you are feeling the strain, if you're feeling the stress, if you're battling with mental illness, if you think there are things that you can't overcome, you are not alone. There is an Australian who is there to help you, an Australian who will reach out to you and seek to support you. And, of course, I implore anyone in that circumstance, experiencing that distress, to get in contact with Lifeline—on 13 11 14—and other frontline service providers, and I thank all of them for the amazing work they do to help their fellow Australians.
On indulgence—I associate Labor with all of the comments of the Prime Minister on this very important day. And I say that we support all of the government's initiatives in this regard and stand ready to support in a bipartisan way any further initiatives that are needed to rid this scourge from our society.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. In the face of skyrocketing cost-of-living pressures on Australian households, can the Treasurer confirm that this government has presided over the worst wages growth on record?
( I thank the member for Rankin for his question. I can confirm to the House that the Wage Price Index, which is the euphemism for wages growth, grew by 2.3 per cent for the year. This was just behind our budget forecast of 2.5 per cent, but, importantly, the wages bill for the economy was 4½ per cent for 2018-19, which was above our budget forecast of 4¼ per cent.
The member for Rankin should be aware that wages growth fell by 1.6 per cent under Labor, and the largest downgrades to wages growth occurred on Labor's watch. If there was anything that was going to cost jobs and if there was anything that was going to see wages fall, that was $387 billion of higher taxes, which the member for Rankin, who we know likes to tax a lot—it is still their policy; they like to spend a lot, as the Prime Minister reminds the House as well. The Labor Party would have seen wages fall and jobs lost, whereas under the coalition wages continue to grow and more than 1.4 million new jobs have been created.
An honourable member interjecting—
The call alternates. It's been doing it for a long time.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on the impact of the drought across regional Australia and how the Morrison-McCormack government is assisting those people and communities affected?
I thank the member for Mallee for her question and point out that I know that there are significant areas in her electorate affected by this crippling and prolonged drought, especially the Millewa, and right across this nation. We heard the member for Monash talking in heartfelt terms in his 90-second statement about how the drought is affecting his Victorian electorate. I know the member for Grey, this morning, talked passionately about how his electorate was suffering. I know whether it's Gippsland, where they've had a few showers but they're still doing it tough, or indeed Farrer, my own electorate, or Parkes—the member for Parkes last Thursday drove about 1,050 kilometres between Broken Hill and Moree and encountered just three mobs of sheep along the way. Many of the farmers have destocked in his electorate, as they have in the member for New England's electorate. I know the member for Maranoa is in fact now a dedicated cabinet minister for drought, but I know how hard the communities and the farmers are affected in Maranoa. They are hurting. They are hurting emotionally and they're hurting financially. After generations of hard work for the land and livestock, imagine seeing all that disintegrate before your very eyes? It's not just a matter of a couple of rough seasons or about the price per head of sheep or cattle; it's about people's homes, their livelihoods and their history on the land.
The government is making sure that our farmers and our small business owners can reach out for help when they need it, and I commend the minister for drought, the member for Maranoa, for the work that he has done in putting rural financial counsellors, experts, around the kitchen table, talking to farmers and their families about how we as a government—we as a parliament, indeed—can help. I know that the member for Eden-Monaro's electorate is hurting too; there are so many more electorates. But over the past year this service has assisted more than 6,600 people, and I know that we stand ready to do even more.
We know that when our farmers suffer, so too does our nation. The federal government is providing a million dollars to 110 councils, including the Buloke Shire Council in the member for Mallee's electorate. We can, we will and we must do more for these drought affected communities. The Drought Communities Program is just one step along the way. It's about investing in local infrastructure projects, making sure that employment stays within communities, making sure that money stays within the towns and making sure that the people at least have a positive outlook.
We will do more. We've put in place the $5 billion Future Drought Fund. It's a good initiative and we'll stand by these communities as they continue to suffer from the effects of the drought.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Only months ago the government promised that a million pensioners would get an $800 bonus from changes to deeming rates. Can the Prime Minister confirm that only 191 pensioner couples will receive $800? How can the Prime Minister explain this broken promise?
I thank the member for Barton for her question. I can confirm that, under these are new deeming rates, affected pensioners will receive up to $40.50 extra a fortnight for couples, which is above $1,000, and up to $31 extra a fortnight for singles—that is $804. On average, a couple receiving the age pension can expect to receive $314 a year extra and a single can expect $250 extra.
The cost of these changes to the deeming rates was $600 million to the budget, and they will benefit around one million people. But as you know, Mr Speaker, there are two deeming rates; there is a lower deeming rate and an upper deeming rate. The member opposite should acquaint herself with the facts.
My question is to the Minister for Health. In April this year the government announced funding to equip every Men's Shed with a portable defibrillator. There are over 900 Men's Sheds in Australia, and more than a dozen are in my electorate, including the Yankalilla Men's Shed, who are anxiously awaiting the rollout. Minister, could you please provide the House an accurate time line of when the government will make good on the promise to ensure every Men's Shed has this vital piece of life-saving equipment installed?
I want to thank the member for Mayo. All members of this House will be acquainted with the work of Men's Sheds around the country. They serve many purposes: (1) they serve a community benefit in terms of supporting those who are less advantaged; (2) they provide a source of comfort and activity, where many of the men who come along might otherwise be isolated; and (3) they serve a very important purpose in terms of mental health and isolation in providing that support for each other—mates supporting mates in a very positive Australian way, which has gone around the world.
I want to acknowledge a previous prime minister, former Prime Minister Gillard, who was a strong supporter, as is the current Prime Minister and as are people on all sides of this House. We recently announced $11 million for the Men's Shed program. That includes an expansion of men's sheds, additional support for existing men's sheds and $2 million for the Men's Shed defibrillator program. My department is currently carrying out a survey of needs around the country. We expect that to be completed over the course of the coming months. My request to them is to have these defibrillators rolling out early in the new year—and it is my confident prediction to the House that they will. I would like to pass on my thanks to those in the Yankalilla Men's Shed. I know Yankalilla, and it's a fine town. Please pass on our thanks to them, and indicate that we are looking to make sure every men's shed in the country is equipped with a defibrillator.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the Morrison government's certain and stable approach to the economy is creating jobs for hardworking families across Australia, including in my electorate of Sturt? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Sturt for his question. He knows that more than 79,000 taxpayers in his electorate will get a tax cut as a result of the legislation that this side of the House supported. Around 30,000 will get the full $1,080 in the electorate of Sturt.
We on this side of the House see it as our job to help create more jobs, and we have seen more than 1.4 million new jobs created on our watch. We now have a record number of Australians in work. We have a participation rate which is at a record high, and we have a gender pay gap which is at a record low, having closed by $1,100 since you were last in office—
Opposition members interjecting —
The Treasurer will just pause for a second. Members on my left will cease shrieking, particularly the member for Rankin. I've got to remind him that he has the matter of public importance this afternoon—so far. The Treasurer has the call.
Employment growth is 2.6 per cent today. When Labor was last in office it was 0.7 per cent—less than a third. Over the last 12 months, more than 320,000 new jobs have been created, eight out of 10 of which have been full time. In the month of July, we saw more than 41,000 new jobs created. Unemployment today is 5.2 per cent, and when we came to government it was 5.7 per cent.
I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? We know that those opposite have $387 billion of higher taxes, which will cost jobs across the economy. All of this is from a party that Paul Keating says:
… has lost the ability to speak aspirationally to people and to fashion policies to meet those aspirations.
Today when you open the paper, on the front page you see the Labor Party ripping themselves apart. On one side of the fence, you've got 'Chairman Wayne' and his acolyte, the member for Rankin. On the other side, you've got the member for Grayndler and his campaign director, the member for Hindmarsh. Who is going to win this tug of war over Labor's taxes? I'll tell you who won't win: the Australian people, because they know that Labor wants to tax a lot and Labor wants to spend a lot. The Labor Party is always the party of higher taxes, and the coalition is always the party of more jobs and lower taxes.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer to the minister's previous answer in which he claimed he had declared his interest in Jam Land according to the rules. How does the minister explain an FOI decision by his department on 23 August 2019 and the answer given to a question on notice from his department also dated August 2019 which states it has no record of any declaration by the minister?
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I will just hear from the Leader of the House on this—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The Leader of the House is entitled to raise a point of order, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. The Manager of Opposition Business does so regularly without being admonished.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
I will wait until you finish.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
I don't know who your conversation is with but until it stops I am not going to hear from the Leader of the House.
I think it's with his conscience.
I think I better call the Leader of the House.
It's with respect to the well-known exception to the rule in 98C relating to statements made by ministers that may have occurred previously, which questions can be asked in relation to. But it appears the question is in relation to an FOI statement, which is not a statement of the minister made previously and therefore would be out of order.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is interjecting regularly, is particularly loud. You're injuring my left ear. I'd prefer you didn't interject but if you have to, maybe the whip will assign you another seat where you're less provocative. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
The question at the start refers to a specific statement that the minister has made to the House. The reference to the FOI points to that statement being untrue, so it is completely appropriate that a minister is able to be asked. It's not like we've simply said 'refer to previous answers' in the general. We have gone specifically to a claim he made that is contradicted by a decision of his department.
Can I hear the question again? I thank the member for Griffith.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer to the minister's previous answer in which he claimed he declared his interest in Jam Land according to the rules. How does the minister explain an FOI decision by his department on 23 August 2019 and the answer to a question on notice from his department also dated August 2019 which stated it has no record of any declaration by the minister?
I will just hear from the Leader of the House again.
The minister's previous statement is with respect to the standard disclosure that he, like all of us, is required to do as a member of parliament. At the very least, what the question does is contain an inference about a statement made by a department, which, by the way, is not the minister's department. But, with respect to a standard which all of us are required to submit to, in that sense, the question is clearly out of order.
The Manager of Opposition Business just briefly.
With respect to the issue of the declaration, we're referring to a specific statement that the minister made in the House, not to the declaration—that's separate to that. With respect to the department, I'd simply draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that it is the minister's department that has made this decision.
I'll rule on this now so that we can—
An honourable member interjecting—
Whoever that was, you're not being helpful. I take the point the Leader of the House is making but, given the linkage to the minister's previous answer, I will allow the question, and obviously he can answer it in the way he sees fit, given what he has said in his previous answer. The minister has the call.
Thank you. I've been clear that my indirect interest in the Delegate farm is declared to the parliament in accordance with the rules. I've always been clear that the discussions with the department were to focus on the technical aspects of the revised listing, and they did. I advised the then minister of the compliance matter and of the need to avoid any discussion of the matter. The department confirmed at a Senate hearing that this approach was completely appropriate. Let's be clear: I declared my interest, the department already knew of the relationship and the meeting didn't discuss the compliance matter.
The member for Ryan has the call.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to industry is supporting jobs growth and business investment by backing manufacturing?
I thank the member for his question, and I thank him for his very great interest in manufacturing businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses in his electorate of Ryan. And that was clearly on display last week when I joined the member in his electorate to announce the opening of the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund. We visited an outstanding business in his electorate: Emesent. It was formed in October of last year following about 10 years of research with the CSIRO. Since that time, they have become world leaders in autonomous drone technology. Their workforce has tripled, and they're exporting to around a dozen countries, and all of that has happened in less than 12 months. But, importantly, they're currently going through a recruitment phase. They're looking to recruit more people, and they're certainly planning to recruit more people over the coming months and years as they expand.
The coalition announced the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund during the election campaign, and now we are delivering that fund. This is a $160 million fund for manufacturers—small and medium enterprises. It comprises $50 million in funding support from the Commonwealth government and $110 million from industry, so there's a co-commitment from the government and from the businesses themselves. The fund is now open, so small and medium enterprises can now make application for grants of between $50,000 and $1 million to look at upgrading the technology that they are currently using to make sure that they become more productive, that they're able to grow their business and so that they can look to employ more people.
It's important to us that we grow manufacturing businesses here in Australia, and let me say that, under the Morrison government, with the certainty and the stability that we offer, Australia will always be a manufacturing nation. We want to help make sure that Australian manufacturing industry continues to be world class. We want to make sure that our manufacturing businesses are competing on value rather than on cost. We know that Australian goods are very highly regarded overseas; they're high quality, and we want to make sure that we are supporting our manufacturing businesses to grow and to develop. The coalition government is committed to working with manufacturing businesses to grow the economy, to improve productivity and to create more jobs.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Does the minister stand by his claim in the House that he intervened in the grasslands matter in the interests of his constituents?
Yes, I always act in the interests of my constituents.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is providing stability and certainty by supporting small business and skills development so as to remove barriers to employment and help Australians into jobs?
Can I thank the member for Curtin for her question and acknowledge her passion for all things education. There are 54 schools in her electorate, a major university, 40 vocational education providers and around 27,000 small businesses, and she's passionate about all of them.
The Morrison government understands that Australians want the certainty and stability that a good job brings, and a stronger economy is the key to creating more jobs for Australians. Our economic strategy continues to see jobs growth in Australia. As at July 2019, almost 1.4 million more Australians were in jobs since the coalition government was elected in 2013. We continue to see record job growth. Total employment is at a record high, with over 12.9 million Australians employed. We have record full-time employment at nearly 8.85 million. Over 255,600 full-time jobs have been created in the past year. Australians have the confidence to enter the job market because we are creating the certainty and stability to back small and family businesses so they can unlock their potential. Just one example of this is that we've extended the instant asset write-off threshold from $25,000 to $30,000 and lifted the turnover rate to $50 million.
Australia also has a world-class tertiary education system, but we are not resting on our laurels. We want to continue to make our skills sector more responsive, more flexible and more attractive to potential students from all walks of life. To achieve this, we're investing over $500 million in measures to increase apprenticeships, promote vocational training and fill skills shortages to ensure that Australians have the real skills that they need for real careers. The Joyce review is an incredibly important review. Why are we doing this? Because we want to provide industry with a pipeline of qualified workers needed to keep our economy strong while targeting training in areas of skills demand. The government is working to ensure businesses and individuals have the skills that they need. How are we able to do this? Because we are providing certainty and stability. We understand that certainty and stability lead to jobs growth and jobs growth leads to national prosperity.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer the minister to his previous answer. Can the minister confirm that he has been representing himself on the grasslands all along and told ABC Illawarra radio on 26 July, 'One of the landholders is me,' and, 'I make absolutely no apologies for standing up for farmers in my region; that includes me'?
The Leader of the House, on a point of order?
It's true, he lives in—
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Deputy Prime Minister, your Leader of the House is seeking the call, if that's okay.
With respect to the exclusion of standing order 98(c) again, it would need to be relatable to that previous statement. The previous statement, as described in the question, was twofold: firstly, that the minister lives in his electorate on a farm; and secondly, that he's representing people in his electorate affected by the issue. Those are two different things.
No, I'm going to allow the question. I think it's a straightforward question.
As it happens, I have a transcript of that interview with me. I'll read from the transcript. I'm quoting myself here: 'I make absolutely no apologies for standing up for farmers in my region.' I make no apologies. If I'm not standing up for farmers in the federal parliament, then who is? That is what local members do. The point I was making was that I and my family are farmers in my electorate. It pains me to remind those opposite that this is a representative democracy. Standing up for your constituents is what local members should do, even though most of us, with a few exceptions, live in our electorates. Labor are accusing me and my family of the heinous crime of being farmers in my electorate, while they turn a blind eye to the literal bags of cash being laundered through Sussex Street. What utter hypocrisy!
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to welfare is successfully removing barriers to employment and getting people off welfare and into a job?
I do thank the member for Lindsay, who has a very strong commitment to helping Australians make the transition from welfare into work, including her constituents. Indeed, in the discharge of my former responsibilities I was delighted to join the member on a visit to Lindsay to explore and deal with examples of exactly how we are working to assist people to make the transition from welfare to work through projects like Productivity Bootcamp, where I joined the member for the official opening of their Penrith trial site. Our government is funding this project with $2.24 million. Four hundred and thirty young people will be trained in skills in construction in an eight-week course. That is a very good example of the focus that our government has on assisting people to make the transition from welfare to work. We're doing that. We're delivering certainty and stability in our approach to helping Australians make the transition from welfare into work.
People know what we on this side of the House stand for. We stand for the proposition that the best form of welfare is a job. More than just standing for that proposition, we're acting to deliver it. We've created 1.4 million jobs since we came to government in 2013. The proportion of working-age Australians on welfare is at its lowest level in 30 years, at 14.3 per cent. By contrast, when we came to government in 2013 that ratio was at 16.5 per cent. Labor's approach is always the same. They talk about how caring they are, but on their watch they simply stand by while more people end up on welfare. By contrast, we are taking practical steps to support Australians on welfare, to create jobs through our $100 billion of investment in infrastructure; through entering into free trade agreements; and through lower taxes on business, because the majority of jobs are private-sector jobs. This is how we're creating jobs, and through innovative programs like Try, Test and Learn, the $96 million program under which the Productivity Bootcamp project in the member's electorate is funded. Our approach is certainty and stability when it comes to getting Australians from welfare into work.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Can the minister confirm that so far he's told the House he was representing an unknown number of unnamed farmers inside and outside his electorate, someone who wrote a letter to someone else three years before the meeting, someone else who wrote a letter to another someone else six months after the meeting, and the mysterious bloke from Yass? Why won't the minister admit to the House what he told local radio: that he's actually been representing himself the entire time?
Thank you, Mr Speaker—
The minister for energy will resume his seat for a second. So will the Manager of Opposition Business. I'm not sure the question asked the minister to refer to his previous answers. I'd just like you to read the opening sentence again.
The opening sentence is: 'Can the minister confirm that so far he has told the House he was representing—'
That's fine. The Leader of the House?
I think the difficulty with that is that it then completely misrepresents previous answers that have been given by the minister.
I say to the Leader of the House that whilst I appreciate the point he's been making, Speaker Andrews and other Speakers have made the point that when these claims are made it's a balancing act between whether you let them stand or let the minister actually deal with them in the way that they want to, so that's the approach I'm going to take. I just wanted to check that it did refer to previous answers, and I'm satisfied with that.
I was representing farmers in my electorate. At a time of drought, like this, those opposite should show some respect for those representing farmers in their electorate. What I find most interesting is—
Opposition members interjecting —
The minister will just pause for a second. I am just going to say to those interjecting loudly to my left: if you don't lower the volume, I'll do it through ejections. I'm putting you all on notice.
What I find most interesting is those opposite come into this place, lecturing us about good governance whilst the stench of corruption emanates from Sussex Street. What complete hypocrisy!
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to welfare is helping Australians facing drug and alcohol addiction get back into employment?
I want to thank the member for Longman, who has come to this place with a passion for helping people facing drug and alcohol addiction, as well as bringing young Australians and people of all ages who are unemployed into employment, with the dignity, the certainty and the stability of work and all of the economic security which comes with that.
In particular, what we know is that in his own electorate he has been a passionate advocate for the $11 million for the Lives Lived Well drug and alcohol program. That includes $7½ million for a residential rehabilitation centre and the balance—$3½ million—for drug detox and treatment programs. This is immensely important, to give people dignity, to give people opportunity and to bring them down from addiction. It's part of a broader program which we're following nationally: a $780 million drug and alcohol program across the nation, including $298 million to the National Ice Action Strategy. That involves treatment programs around the country, both at the local level and more generally.
One of the things, though, that is very important is we know that for people seeking employment, where they happen to have, and suffer from, some form of addiction, it can be a double burden. It can make the seeking of employment especially hard. That is why the government is proposing to bring into being a 5,000-person trial across three sites—in Queensland, in New South Wales and in Mandurah in WA—for drug testing for welfare recipients.
The important thing here is that there are two steps initially. Firstly, if somebody fails an initial test then they will have their welfare quarantined to the extent of 80 per cent, precisely so as to allow them to spend that money on the things that they need to physically sustain themselves—not to be the subject of attacks by drug dealers and others who would harvest their funds. But, secondly, if after a second test at 25 days they test positive again then they will be referred to medical support. We are providing $10 million to that medical support to allow people the opportunity to have specialised treatment, to give them the chance to break that addiction and to give them the dignity of work, which comes more easily if they are free of that addiction. That is real compassion and real stability of policy, because people know we stand for giving Australians the chance to get off addiction. We do that because we believe in it, we do that because it's the right thing and we do that because ultimately this is the pathway to stability, to certainty and to the dignity of work. (Time expired)
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the failure of the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction to put the public interest ahead of his own interest, his failure to declare his interests in Jam Land to his department, his failure to declare his interests to this House and his admission that he was representing his own private interests. Will the Prime Minister now do what he should have done weeks ago and sack this minister?
That would have to be the lamest build-up I've seen to that type of a question in this place. Not only is every assertion that he's just put to this place totally and absolutely false, but the Liberal Party and the National Party will not be lectured by someone who used to work in the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. He had a desk in the office in the Sussex Street headquarters of a party that stinks of corruption, where they get money in plastic bags and count it out on the table. He is a member of the branch of the New South Wales Labor Party, where his colleague in the other place thinks the only thing—
Opposition members interjecting—
Oh, you don't want me to talk about this. You don't want this on the table.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. He was state director of a party that had 10 people resign.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That was not a point of order; that was a statement. The Prime Minister has the call.
With the number of Labor Party members from the New South Wales division who used to serve in Senator Keneally's former government that are in jail, you could establish a branch of the Labor Party at the Silverwater prison. And the member for Watson would know all about it, because one of those people who went to prison was Eddie Obeid, the ski lodge patron that the member for Watson used to visit when he bends the knees come winter. I will not cop lectures on integrity from the New South Wales Labor Party. That mob stinks with corruption, as we see every single day in the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which has your state secretary right under its gaze.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides! Someone's about to get ejected. Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking to table a document?
No, I'm not, Mr Speaker. I move that such—
No, the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The call alternates, and I'll come back to him after the next question.
My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to welfare is helping Australians move out of welfare and into jobs through the cashless debit card trials?
I thank the member for his question and his ongoing interest and, more importantly, belief in a stable and certain approach to the welfare system. I'm more than happy to respond to the member as the minister responsible for service delivery, noting Minister Ruston is the policy owner.
On this side, we are absolutely committed to the best ways to support individuals, families and communities in places where high levels of welfare dependence coexist with high levels of harm. That's why we rolled out the cashless debit card to four communities across this country that stood up to volunteer to trial the card and stood up for real change in their communities.
The first of these communities was Ceduna and the surrounding regions, in the member's own electorate, after calls for help from the community to fix real barriers to employment: the plight of alcohol abuse, drugs, domestic violence and gambling—all things that have been a scourge on those communities. Those communities are now seeing exceptional results that we as a parliament can be proud of. In Ceduna there is a strong and a uniform theme coming out: the streets of their towns are quieter and it feels safer. Call-outs to the night patrols have reduced from several call-outs per night to only one or two call-outs per fortnight. Police are reporting significant decreases in late-night call-outs for domestic violence, and that's something all of us should welcome here in this place. Health officials and emergency department staff report significant reductions in mental health and domestic violence presentations. Corey McLellan, an Indigenous leader from the community of Koonibba, near Ceduna, has said: 'This is the best thing that has happened to our community. We'd do it again; absolutely.'
Over a dozen research projects attest to the trial's success. Most recently, the baseline report in the Goldfields has reaffirmed the previous findings that we are seeing: a decrease in drug and alcohol issues, a decrease in violent crime and antisocial behaviour, improvements in child health and wellbeing, improved financial management, and ongoing and even strengthened community support. This is completely consistent with the independent evaluation released in 2017 that found that the cashless debit card had a considerable positive impact in the first two trial sites. It includes 41 per cent of participants reporting drinking less frequently, 48 per cent of participants surveyed reporting drugs less frequently and 48 per cent of those who gambled before the trial now reporting gambling less often. Doing nothing is not an option, and, combined with the investment in social services, we're seeing a real investment in helping people.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Grayndler from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the only compliance investigation by the Department of Environment and Energy into alleged poisoning of critically endangered grasslands in the Monaro region relates to land owned by Jam Land Pty Limited which is itself part-owned by the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction;
(b) the Minister met with the Department of Environment and Energy and the office of the then Minister for the Environment and Energy, and now Treasurer, to discuss the listing of critically endangered grasslands while the department was investigating the alleged poisoning of the same grasslands on land owned by Jam Land;
(c) an FOI and an answer to a Question on Notice from the Department of Environment and Energy confirms the Minister has failed to declare his interest in Jam Land to the Department;
(d) the Minister has failed to declare his interests in Jam Land to the House as required by the Ministerial Standards and resolutions and standing orders of the House; and
(e) the Minister has repeatedly told the House he was representing the interests of farmers in his electorate but the Minister has admitted on ABC Radio Illawarra that he has been representing his own private interests, again in breach of the Ministerial Standards;
(2) censures the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction for repeatedly breaching the Ministerial Standards by:
(a) failing to appropriately declare his personal and pecuniary interest;
(b) using his ministerial office to advance his private interests at the expense of the public interest; and
(c) deliberately misleading the House; and
(3) therefore, calls on the Minister to resign, and if he will not, calls on the Prime Minister to immediately sack the Minister.
The case against the minister is clear. He used his public office to advance—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
I move:
That the Member no longer be heard.
The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. There is one threatened species in Parliament House today and he is sitting right over there. There was not one word of defence from the Prime Minister.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
I move:
That the Manager of Opposition Business be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
This is an important matter, particularly given Threatened Species Day. The earless dragon is one of many species—
The member for Griffith will resume her seat.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Griffith be no longer heard.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. I call the member for Hindmarsh.
This Prime Minister has chosen a witless minister over the earless dragon!
The member for Hindmarsh will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
They should try to fully embrace Aldi and go for 'Good Different'. I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Hindmarsh be no longer heard. All those of that opinion say 'aye'; to the contrary 'no'. I think the ayes have it.
No-one said 'aye'!
No, they did. I think the ayes have it. Division required? Ring the bells for one minute.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is delivering stability and certainty through a strong and consistent policy on border protection?
I thank the honourable member for his question. This government certainly are very proud of the fact that we've been able to stop deaths at sea, we've been able to get the children out of detention that Labor put into detention and we have a very stable and certain policy offering when it comes to national security and border protection. But, as it turns out, that's not the case on the Labor side of this parliament. I'm not often found in this place quoting James Campbell, but he published an interesting article on 4 September. It went something like this—it's content rich; maybe we'll come back to it again, but in the time limit we have today I'll just quote part of it—'Kristina Keneally thinks she is on a winner by attacking border protection policies, but political history dictates that she is so, so wrong.' He says, 'Let's hear it for Shayne Neumann, a man whose political judgement looks better every day that passes.'
The minister will—
I'm quoting from this article, Mr Speaker.
The minister will listen to the problem I have with his answer. Whilst he's given many answers like this, they've been to questions that have had the tagline, 'Are there any alternative policies?' This question did not ask that, so at the moment he is out of order. The question was about the government's policy of delivering stability and certainty. It did not mention any alternative policies.
If I can go to the stability and certainty of what this federal government promises, I'll contrast it to what we won't do—
No, the minister won't do that.
and it's important that we don't follow Labor's lead. I'll use their example by pointing out—
The minister will resume his seat. I've made this clear on a number of occasions. There have been hundreds of questions that have asked about alternative policies. It's not up to me to modify the questions. The minister will not go to alternative policies, because he was not asked about them. If he wants to be asked about alternative policies in a different question, he can.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's very important advice, and I'm very happy to return to this topic tomorrow, the day after and many days after that. At the election the Australian public voted for this government because we keep our borders secure and we keep our promises with the Australian public. We aren't all over the place on border protection and national security. We have delivered strong border security, and we will not allow a return to days—we will never adopt a policy that allows people to drown at sea. We will never adopt a policy that sees children back in detention, and this government will not adopt a policy where we allow the people smugglers to get back in control. At the last election, when the Australian public looked at this government, they saw something which they believed was an essential ingredient in leadership demonstrated by the Prime Minister—that is, that we will bring people into this country the right way, but we will not allow people to hop on boats and come to our country. We've been very clear about it. We can be compassionate, because we will bring this year 18,750 people into our country under the humanitarian and refugee program, but we will not allow them to come by boat. We won't allow them to come by boat, and we will not allow a situation, again, where this country loses control of its borders.
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.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failures on the economy and their lack of a plan to turn things around.
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—
After six years of this Liberal government, now into its third term, the Australian economy is floundering. The Australian economy is floundering because the Morrison government are flailing around looking for a fight and because they have political tactics but not an economic policy to turn this floundering economy around. When Australians need a Prime Minister 100 per cent focused on the economy, they have instead a Prime Minister 100 per cent focused on playing political games here in Canberra. How do we know this? We know it because the Prime Minister himself went to the Liberal Party convention on Saturday and, in a moment of arrogance and hubris, said that the thing he likes to do most is to set tests for the Labor Party. That speaks volumes about the approach of this Prime Minister and this Liberal government. They're always looking to play political games. They spend all of their time looking for opportunities to wedge the Labor Party, banging on about the Labor Party and Labor policy and the last election, and none of their time working out how they are going to turn around an economy which is defined by the slowest economic growth in the 10 years since the global financial crisis. When we need a government focused on jobs, jobs, jobs, all they ever do is talk about Labor, Labor, Labor.
That's what's going on here, that is the problem, and it invites the obvious question: if we have a Prime Minister who is so focused on wedging the Labor Party and playing political games here in this building, who's minding the shop when it comes to the economy? It invites the obvious question: if the economy's going as well as the Treasurer and the Prime Minister want to pretend, why are they trying to distract from it? If the economy is going so well, why has the Reserve Bank cut interest rates to one per cent, a third of what they were during the global financial crisis? If the economy's going so well, why has the Governor of the Reserve Bank had to call, seven times since the election alone and 17 times since he's been the governor, for some decent infrastructure investment to be brought forward to get the place going again? If the economy is going so well, why is it that so many Australians in so many communities right around Australia feel that, no matter how hard they work, they just can't get ahead; they just can't keep their heads above water, no matter how hard they work? That's a story of skyrocketing childcare, energy and private health insurance prices, but it's also a story about stagnant wages—the worst wages growth in the history of that statistic, under those opposite right now, over the last six years.
Now, it's tempting to think, as we have thought for some time, that perhaps the Prime Minister is just in denial about all of these things that are going on in the economy. But it's equally possible that the Prime Minister now, after this avalanche of bad data in the last few months and the deterioration of the economy even since the election, is worse than in denial about some of these issues. It's possible that he just doesn't care about what's going on in the real economy, in real communities, right around Australia and about what's happening to real people. With an approach like that it's no wonder that we have the slowest economic growth in a decade. It's no wonder that, as the NAB tells us today, business confidence and business conditions have deteriorated even further, well below the long-term average for that measure. It's no wonder that, in a poll published today, Australians have said that their biggest concern is cost-of-living pressures—all of these cost-of-living pressures left unattended by those opposite and a consequence of the most stagnant wages of any government in the history of the Commonwealth. It's no wonder the national accounts that were released last Wednesday were so bad for the government. They were a report card on the economy, of course, as they always are, but they were also a report card on a six-year government now entering its third term. Let's look at some of the numbers that were in those national accounts.
I've mentioned the slowest growth in 10 years. Household living standards have declined under those opposite, as well. Real household median income is lower than it was in 2013. Wages are growing at one-sixth the pace of profits; the government has presided over the worst wages growth on record. There are 1.8 million Australians looking for work or looking for more work. Household debt is at record levels. It has increased by $650 billion under the Liberals—190 per cent of disposable income. Business investment is down 20 per cent since the Liberals came to office, as the member for Hotham mentioned yesterday in question time, and is now at its lowest level since the 1990s recession. Consumer confidence is down over the year. Consumption growth is weak. Productivity is declining. Australia was one of the two fastest growing economies in the OECD under Labor, was the eighth-fastest when government changed hands and is the 20th-fastest today. We are in the bottom half of the OECD when it comes to economic growth. And all of that's before we get to the fact that only one government in the history of the Commonwealth have had gross debt over half a trillion dollars—that one over there—and they've more than doubled net debt in their time in office.
I think for all of these reasons we can begin to understand why the Treasurer looks a bit like he's seen a ghost. I think it's because it is finally dawning on him that blame-shifting and finger-pointing won't grow the economy. I think it's finally dawning on him that the energy policy paralysis that he has been one of the biggest culprits for won't grow the economy either. Banging on about Labor won't grow the economy. Playing political games won't grow the economy. Hoping for the best won't grow the economy. All of these strategies, all of these political tactics which have been employed by those opposite, and especially by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, have fallen flat because none of them is an actual economic strategy to turn around an economy which is floundering on their watch.
None of us has a personal problem with the Treasurer, but it used to be that his particular brand of incompetence had a grinning face. He used to be the friendly face of incompetence in that government. He used to be incompetence with a grin, but now the grin has gone. The grin has gone because it has dawned on him that the brief stop that the Treasurer thought the Treasury would be on his glorious path to the prime ministership is now littered with the consequences of six years, and three terms, without an economic plan. We see that in the floundering economy and in all of the data, the avalanche of bad data, that we have seen in the last little while.
We all want to see the economy pick up. We all want to see jobs created and opportunities created, but the way to do that is not to pretend away the challenges that we have in the economy, as those opposite would have us do. It's not to pretend that everything in the economy is hunky-dory.
Government members interjecting—
Every time the Treasurer or the Prime Minister or the interjectors want to pretend that the economy is going great guns, people out in the community say, 'What planet are these guys from?' People are dealing with stagnant wages, record household debt and declining living standards. No matter how hard they work they can't get ahead. And if they happen to have the misfortune of switching over to question time during the day, they see the Treasurer and the Prime Minister being so spectacularly out of touch that they think everything in the economy is hunky-dory.
We have played a constructive role in trying to make the government see sense. We have proposed some ideas. The government could pick them up and run with them, and we would support them. They could pick up all of these ideas or they could pick up some of them, but more of the same is not going to cut it. We have proposed bringing forward their own tax cuts. We have proposed doing something about Newstart. We have proposed doing something about wages or bringing forward some infrastructure investment. We have proposed an incentive for business investment. We have proposed, multiple times, trying to find a way through on the energy policy debacle, which has seen those opposite have 16 different policies in six years. We need to do those things if we are to get the economy growing again. We invite the government to pick up any or all of the ideas that we have proposed in good faith to try and get this economy going again.
They talked about certainty. They should have tabled the focus group report today when they were banging on about stability and certainty. Only one thing is certain: more of the same will not get this economy out of the doldrums that it finds itself in after six years, and in the third term, of those opposite. They have to actually do something about what's going on in the economy. Crossing your fingers, hoping for the best, banging on about the Labor Party and having a political strategy but not an economic policy—none of those things will actually get the economy growing again. It's not enough to pretend that you're good at managing the economy, when the facts tell a very different story. In essence, the story that the facts tell is this: the economy is floundering, the government is flailing and Australians are struggling and paying the price for a government that doesn't have a plan to turn things around.
I say to the shadow Treasurer: what won't grow the economy is Labor's higher taxes, which are still policies of the opposition—notwithstanding the very public fight that he is having with the member for Hindmarsh. The member for Hindmarsh is obviously doing the bidding of the Leader of the Opposition, saying, quite rightly, I think: 'We got it wrong. Our $387 billion of higher taxes that were rejected by the Australian people'—$387 billion of higher taxes which would be lead in the saddlebags of the economy—'must change.' On the other hand, we have the shadow Treasurer's mentor, the shadow Treasurer's former boss, Chairman Swanny, the President of the Labor Party, saying, 'Oh, no, we stick with all the policies.' Presumably they stick with those $387 billion of higher taxes. I say to the shadow Treasurer: turn to your mate the member for Hindmarsh and work out the story before you come to this dispatch box and start speaking down the economy.
As Paul Keating quite rightly said after the election, Labor failed to understand the middle-class economy. Labor failed to understand that those $387 billion of higher taxes were absolutely no recipe for an improved economy, no recipe for improving GDP and certainly no recipe to continue the great work of this government. The signature achievement of this government has been jobs growth: 1.4 million Australians have a job today that they didn't have when this government came into office. In fact, when we were first elected, jobs growth was at 0.7 per cent. Now it's at 2.6 per cent. That doesn't happen by accident. As a government, we say the credit, of course, goes to those hardworking men and women and entrepreneurial individuals who have created those jobs, but no doubt this government and the policies that we've put forward have created an environment that encourages that investment and backs in those hardworking Australians.
To get back to the shadow Treasurer: he looked very, very disappointed the other day when the final figures came through for the June quarter. It's always sad to see politicians and members of the opposition wishing for bad news for the Australian economy. I understand it must be difficult in opposition—on one hand you want ammunition to use against the government—but I think there's something quite despicable about wishing, hoping and seeming quite excited for the prospect of bad economic news. Well, that bad economic news didn't come. Sure, the economy grew at 0.5 per cent for the quarter—1.9 per cent year on year, or 1.4 per cent. We know that there are challenging times in the global economy, but fortunately the Australian economy—an open, export-oriented economy—is able to grasp opportunities, and we are very confident for the future of the economy. Indeed, when you look at confidence, confidence from a consumer perspective is being supported by $15 billion of income tax refunds, which have hit people's bank accounts, in addition to two successive rate reductions, which are also going to support that confidence.
So, of course, as a government we say there's always more work to do. There's absolutely hard work to do. What we know is that the prescription to improve an economy is not to put lead in the saddlebags, which presumably the shadow Treasurer believes is the policy that's required. The shadow Treasurer has sent Chairman Swanny out to argue the case for not changing the policies. The member for Hindmarsh has come out publicly to absolutely repudiate the shadow Treasurer, and I have some sympathy for the member for Hindmarsh. Of course he's right. Of course the policies that the Labor Party took to the election were wrong. They were policies that were repudiated by the Australian people.
The question here for the shadow Treasurer in putting forward this MPI today—he looked a bit forlorn; he certainly didn't have the energy and the cockiness we're used to from the shadow Treasurer—is that he needs to have that discussion and explain to this House and to the Australian public why everything they took to the Australian people was perfect: 'Our policies were perfect.' He needs to explain why their policies—their $387 billion of higher taxes—shouldn't change and should continue. But I think he's going to struggle making that argument.
One of the great achievements of this government has been infrastructure, and there's no doubt about the infrastructure spend of over $100 billion, which is rolling out as soon as possible. There are a number of projects, including a range of projects in my home state. One that was re-announced just last week is for an extra $380-odd million to, in conjunction with the state government of Victoria, do more work on the Monash Freeway. That is in addition to the $5 billion commitment for airport rail, in addition to the Urban Congestion Fund and in addition to the Victorian congestion fund. We are absolutely investing in the productive capacity of the economy through better infrastructure. These things aren't new. This was outlined in our budget. We have a plan. We work towards a plan, and that plan is delivering dividends for this country—unlike the Labor Party and unlike the shadow Treasurer's mentor, 'Chairman Swanny', who promised surplus after surplus. I suspect it was the shadow Treasurer who wrote those immortal words that Wayne Swann delivered: 'The four years of surpluses I announce tonight …' How many of those surpluses were delivered? None. That is because the Labor Party are incapable—absolutely incapable—of managing an economy or managing a budget.
Unlike the Labor Party, when we make promises, we keep them. Unlike the Labor Party, we will get back into surplus. We will take the economy back to surplus, and that absolutely sends a strong message to Australians that you can have confidence in the government, you can have confidence in the political environment and you can have confidence in our economy to invest, to grow and to create the jobs that are necessary. Unemployment has fallen to 5.2 per cent—much lower than it was when we inherited government. Welfare dependency is down. We have a lot of debates in this chamber about welfare dependency, but one hallmark of this government has been creating jobs, enabling people to have those opportunities and then ensuring that they make the most of them. And Australians have—with an unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent.
Of course, there's more to be done. And we will do it. I spoke earlier about our economy being an open, outward-facing economy. Now, 75 per cent of our trade is represented by trade with jurisdictions that we have free trade agreements with. I absolutely commend all of the former ministers, including the current trade minister, for working day in, day out to conclude free trade agreements with 1¾ billion people to make sure that Australian businesses—Australian small, medium and large businesses alike—can take those opportunities. That has been one of the things that have ensured we're able to withstand global economic tensions that, no doubt, are going to cause global trade volumes, potentially, to drop. Those free trade agreements will certainly give—and have given—Australian exporters a competitive advantage compared to those jurisdictions that don't have them.
These free trade agreements don't happen by accident. The Labor Party can't conclude free trade agreements, because the Labor Party often have the union movement holding them back. I remember, in the Howard years, the unions campaigning against the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. I remember being a member in this House and having unions handing out material in my electorate—quite xenophobic material—against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement and the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. So, sadly, the Labor Party are held back, because you can't bite the hand that feeds you, and we know that that relationship with the union movement is quite toxic.
We in this government think that there are reasons to be very bullish about the prospects for the Australian economy, and we won't join the Labor Party in trying to scare Australians. We won't be drawn by the Labor Party in trying to talk down the economy, because we know the fundamentals are strong and we know that the most prosperous days for our country are ahead.
Here is an MPI talking about the economy, asking for the government to explain itself in terms of what it's going to do, and where's the Treasurer? Nowhere. He's nowhere to defend himself. I watched for a while because the member for Petrie was there on his own. He normally has one expression on his face, so it's hard to discern emotions, but I thought for a moment he was panicked because he was going to be the last line of defence. And then they brought in the last-last line of defence, in the member for Deakin, here defending the Treasurer and being able to represent the government's position on economic policy, because the Treasurer has no plan.
Unfortunately, I may be the only one to notice this: the Treasurer seems to have a little bit of a formulaic approach to delivering every single answer. He'll basically just bombard you with facts. It's like watching one of those magicians pull knotted handkerchiefs out of his mouth—one fact after the other, to the point where he doesn't convince you with argument; you just surrender because you've heard so many facts from him. After telling us everything, talking everywhere, bombarding the press gallery with 5.30 am WhatsApp messages—he can't leave them alone; I'm sure at some point they'll put in a claim for bullying—he then says, 'The Labor Party's talking down the economy.' How? We don't get a chance to get a word in! He's the Treasurer who's always talking, but he can't come up with a plan. He has a media plan, he has a plan to politic; he doesn't have a plan for the economy. And he doesn't have a plan to respond to this.
He mentioned today that the wage price index had moved by 2.2 per cent. If you look at the wage price index—an indication of what's happening with people's pay packets—you see that, in the five years to December 2013, wages moved by 3.3 per cent, on average. During the GFC, they moved by 3.3 per cent. In the five years from December 2013 to December 2018, what happened to wages? They moved by 2.2 per cent. Under the government's watch, wages started to flatline. What was happening in the five years to December 2013? We had a GFC, and still wages grew more strongly than they have with anything the other side have been able to do. They have no answer for the poor performance of wages. This is a big deal to people because it means that they cannot necessarily have the confidence to pay for the things that they want to do, the confidence that they're going to have the money there to support them.
Those opposite talk about unemployment but never mention that 700,000 Australians are out of work and that another million are saying that, if you ask for more hours or better pay, you're not getting it. Underemployment is a big issue. They have no plan, particularly for the long-term unemployed, the number of whom stays at roughly 400,000 a year. There is no plan for them. There's no plan to get people more work.
If you look at this other damning statistic, you see that the number of jobs that people have to hold down has doubled over the last year. The number of people holding four jobs—four!—has doubled over the past year. Again, does the government have any idea what they'll do?
They'll say that over the course of a budget wages will increase, but it never happens, and people still feel the same way. Household debt is high. In terms of things that matter, business investment is not growing; business confidence is floundering. They are an out-of-touch government that have no answer, no way to help ordinary workers and their families. All they've got is a plan for politicking, and there's got to better than that.
We can't keep having a government say that the biggest job that they have to do when parliament sits is to set a test for us. No, the bigger test is for them: to be able to show that they can actually deliver an economy that works and that works for everyone, not just some. This is the problem with those opposite. Like I said: they've got a media plan, they've got a plan for politicking, but they've got no plan for an economy.
I welcome the proposal from the member for Rankin, the shadow Treasurer, because what we saw today was the tragic reality of what confronts Labor into the future. I know he is living in the pedigree of the member for McMahon and the former member for Lilley—those incredibly successful Labor acolytes in the tradition of finding no new tax they don't like or no new bit of spending, deficit and debt that they will not wallow themselves in. Of course, we also saw the platform on which he seeks to audition for the role of Leader of the Opposition—currently, the seat seems to be completely vacant, as demonstrated in question time today. But let's get down to the actual substance of the motion, which is something about how those opposite think there is no plan for the economy from this government.
Opposition members interjecting—
I have to say: that is just complete rubbish. Rather than interjecting, if the opposition want to sit there and listen to the answer, it's actually extremely straightforward. Step 1 in the plan is stop you getting elected, and we achieved that very successfully at the last election! That's kind of important, because when you come to the Australian people and say, 'The solution to Australia's economy is to chuck higher taxes—in fact, $387 billion more in taxes—on the Australian people to drive productivity and growth,' it's wonderful that they now come in here and continue to defend, as many people do, that platform as something they should take to the public again. Step 1, stop Labor getting elected: success. Step 2, stop their higher taxes: we did so by achieving step 1, something we should be very proud of.
Then we get to our platform of what we should do. Step 3 is cut taxes. We made sure we passed legislation through this parliament—against Labor's will, against their opposition, against their fighting, against their behaviour, against their tactics and against every single thing they tried to do procedurally—that cut income taxes for low- and middle-income earners. Because we actually have the capacity to do so because we are running the budget pretty well, we have also put in place and legislated tax cuts into the future, so that people can plan and can put themselves in a position where they have the best chance to pay their fair share of tax. These tax cuts are encouraging people to work and grow the economy. Step 4 is $100 billion of record investment in infrastructure. In fact, the record of investment now is so great that the Governor of the Reserve Bank talks about capacity constraints and some of the challenges we have in being able to roll out more! This is not us in isolation; we have to acknowledge that some of it happens with the assistance of the states.
What are the consequences of this four-step plan, this very clear plan about building the economy of the 21st century for Australia? We'll start a new list: (1) 28 years of uninterrupted growth; (2) we have maintained our AAA credit rating; (3) we're delivering a budget surplus for the first time in many years, and it's certainly a long time since Labor has achieved the same! Then let's go to the subpoints of (1), (2) and (3); let's get down to subpoint (a) of (3). This is how detailed the plan is! Let's go and ask Australian workers what they think. Of course, what we know is there's actually a record number of Australians in work. In fact, we created 1.4 million jobs since about 2013. That's point (a).
Let's go to point 3(b): what's the impact on women and those people who have traditionally experienced the problem of the gender pay gap? It's narrowing. That's a pretty good one. How about point 3(c): let's go and ask the unemployed Australians about what they think of the plan? What has happened to unemployed people is that there has been a reduction in the number of people who are dependent on welfare, as well as having record employment. What about subsection 3(d)? Let's ask our exporters. These are the greatest terms of trade and trade surplus on record, at $8.3 billion. With subsection 3(e), let's go and ask small business. They're getting record investment as a consequence of the tax cuts and the instant asset write-off.
So what exactly is the problem? Is it a failure of comprehension of our plan? Admittedly, now I've gone through so many steps in its comprehensive detail that it might be hard for those on the other side to understand.
It is my pleasure to rise today and speak on this matter, because it's something that constituents are raising with me every single day in my electorate of Lilley. As the current member for Lilley, I invite you all to speak about my efforts at any time.
When I was in the private sector, working as a workers' compensation lawyer, I assisted clients who had been injured at work through no fault of their own. This re-enforced something to me that I already knew to be true—that is, not everybody who has a go gets a go. Life is not that simple or reliably benevolent. And that reality is at play every single day in our local communities—communities who rely upon us to advocate for them and to raise their issues in the parliament. So that is what I'd like to do today.
Specifically, I'd like to talk about the loss of jobs in my community on the north side of Brisbane. In the past few weeks alone, we have lost more than 840 jobs. There are nearly 100 jobs being lost from Lockheed Martin, who are shutting operations altogether in Pinkenba, where they make commercial helicopters. And you would have seen in the press that Virgin Australia is axing 750 jobs from their head office, which is also located on the north side of Brisbane. Eight hundred and forty jobs lost in a couple of weeks is a very big deal to one community, and yet what we have from this government is an elaborate Kabuki theatre, full of subsections and 'a to d' about how well they are doing. They are not doing well. This is what's happening on the ground.
What locals asked me to bring up with the parliament this week are their concerns about where the economy is going and why there is no plan. They're not talking about the quarterly figures being a shade better than was expected or a shade lower than what was forecast in the budget. They're not talking about how, apparently, the quarterly figures in September are expected to get a little better again so we should all hold hard until then. September quarterly figures being debated in Canberra matter very little to you if you have just lost your job or if you are worried about losing your job in the near future, because job security and insecure work are very big issues.
To this end, last week I bought the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, to Lilley to meet with workers who had had their wages stolen. We met with Sulu and Kulinder, who spoke to us about how much they'd had stolen from them by their employers—$14,000 and I think something like $32,000—in just a year or two. And they had no idea until the union assisted them to work that out and then reclaim those wages. Stolen wages—
Mr Falinski interjecting—
Yes, unions are actually very helpful if you let them do their jobs; if you let them do their work and don't go after them with union-busting legislation. But I will come to that, don't you worry.
So instead of talking about stolen wages—an issue of great concern to my community of Lilley, which had the highest reported number of stolen wage cases in the country in the last parliamentary term—or moving legislation that would assist workers with job losses, or stagnating wages or stolen wages, instead of doing things like criminalising those matters, we have this government talking about what a great job they are doing and esoteric things like quarterly figures that make them look good on Sky. That's what they're talking about instead.
We don't see this third-term government giving us a plan for jobs or wage stagnation. We don't see any legislation for that; instead, we see legislation for union busting—going after the very people who stand on the frontline, helping workers reclaim wages and protecting their rights at work every single day. I just mentioned Sulu and Kulinder, who had wages recovered with the assistance of their union. Going after unions who are on the frontline, protecting workers in an economy like this where we are losing jobs and wages are stagnating, is like seeing a house on fire and deciding to go in and take apart the smoke alarm. These are the consequences of the decisions of this government.
I also want to mention briefly the problem that young people are having in this economy and the failure to plan for their futures. People have lost jobs. People have lost benefits. People have lost much of the safety net that used to make those losses less frightening, and they see a future for their kids that looks even more foreboding than their precarious present. Millennials are now earning 20 per cent less than their parents did at the same age when you adjust for inflation. The wealth of households under the age of 35 has barely moved since 2004. Youth unemployment is around double the national average, and in my home state of Queensland it is as high as 25 per cent in the regions. Wage stagnation is grinding our economy into the dust, and this government's plan is to make us all look over there at their shiny new drug test for Newstart recipients instead. They should hang their heads in shame and bunker down on a plan.
Firstly, can I congratulate the member for Lilley for turning out for Queensland this morning. She had a crack and played pretty well, I have to say. So when it comes to sport, we are all on the same side. But in terms of the economy and what we are doing for the Australian nation, we are on a different page. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, I very clearly remember the last recession, as do a number of people in this building. The last recession was the recession we had to have, according to Paul Keating, but we now have the opposition wanting to talk us into another one.
We have an opposition, a Labor Party, that want to talk down the Australian economy. I am still staggered they would do this. There is real risk. Those opposite might not think that this happens, but there are individuals out there who listen to you. You have a very important position in this parliament and, when it comes to our country and the confidence of our businesses and what people do every single day, they hear what you say. We need to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to continue forward to build our economy, to provide opportunities, because we cannot go around talking down the Australian economy. We cannot go around telling mums and dads to put their wallets and purses away when it's time to be out there doing what they need to.
There is no risk. We have an AAA credit rating—still—and 28 years of economic growth. I mean, the last quarterly figures weren't a negative number. It wasn't 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 or 0.4; it was a half a per cent growth. We haven't gone backwards. We still haven't had the effects of the tax cuts come into those statistics. That will happen in the next quarter. There are true opportunities for our economy, for our businesses, and we are doing everything we possibly can as a government to provide the structures for those businesses to be successful and to employ more Australians because, for me, in this place, that is what this is about.
We need to ensure that every single Australian has an opportunity to be at work, to pay their own way, to ensure they can pay for their houses and for their families and for their children to go to school, and we should not be talking down the businesses and the economy that provide those opportunities ever. So I say to those opposite: think about a different line of attack because this is a great nation and we should continue to support it every single day and at every opportunity that we are in front of a microphone or in front of the media. So shame on you for what you have been doing because we are delivering.
The Australian people had a choice at the last election. Those opposite put forward their plan for the economy. I have to say, there was a turning point in that campaign, and it came from a gentleman called Jonathan Lee, a reporter for Channel Ten who put to the then Leader of the Opposition: 'What will your environmental policies cost the economy and the Australian people?' Mr Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong—he might be the member for a different area now; I am uncertain—the former Leader of the Opposition, could not or would not answer. What that said to every single person who saw that interview was that he either didn't know what it would cost or that it was so expensive that he did not want to say.
The Australian people made their choice. When it came down to who they trust to run the economy, they have come to the coalition for good reason. They have voted for us again. It is our third term for good reason, because what was put forward by those opposite, they did not accept. It is that straightforward. I know it is very difficult for those opposite to accept the Australian people didn't vote for their proposition. But, quite simply, they did not. Now we will continue to deliver what it is we said we would do.
The government has $100 billion on the table for infrastructure growth. If you look at my electorate, unemployment there has been unacceptably high for far too long. But what I know is that in the last 12 months youth unemployment has dropped from almost 28 per cent to 18 per cent in just one year. Overall unemployment is down to 7.4 from 9.6 at the same time 12 months ago. That is a very, very positive result. We need to ensure we continue to do what it is we've been doing, and that is delivering for the Australian economy.
We are ensuring confidence for business. We are ensuring that they have options, particularly for trade. As you know, Deputy Speaker Hogan, trade in Australia means jobs, and more trade means more jobs. When we came into government, just 26 per cent of our two-way trade was covered by free trade agreements. We now have that at 75 per cent. That is belt-and-braces security for Australian businesses that are exporting, and that is jobs into our economy, particularly in regional areas. I say it again to those opposite: shame on you for talking down the Australian economy. Be confident about your country, because this is the nation of Australia. The reason we are in this building is to represent those people to the best of our ability.
To clarify: we're not talking the economy down; we're doing what we're elected here to do, which is to hold the government to account. This government needs to be held to account. I rarely say this, but I actually found one of the answers in question time yesterday somewhat interesting. It was a question to the Treasurer where he was asked how he felt about the fact that, on a number of key measures, the economy wasn't matching where it was projected to be at the last budget. He said it is true that real GDP growth is behind where it should be, but nominal GDP growth is slightly ahead of where it should be, and that's the key measure for getting to a surplus. It struck me that that is a reflection of how narrow this government's view of its economic mandate is, that delivering a surplus is the beginning and the end of this government's story. That's the beginning and the end of their management of this economy. It was telling to me that that kind of technical differentiation—which is important—is the end of where they think about the economy.
I'm one for having endless debates in this place about nominal versus real GDP; about real versus per-capita GDP—I love that stuff. But we also, at some point, need to step back and ask an even more important question, which is: what is this economy doing for real people? I go back to the member for Lilley's contribution, which was on what's happening to families and what's happening to people—to their wages and to household incomes. I think the fundamental question people in the community are asking is, 'Am I better off, and is my family better off, now than six years ago?' Too many people in my electorate and too many people around this country cannot answer yes to that question. I'm going to look at a few measures of this—a few straightforward, clear pieces of evidence. Let's look at the HILDA survey results which were released recently. If we look at median household income—median is the key one here, because median reflects the typical family; mean, the average, often reflects what happens to the very top end of town—it has fallen $542 since 2009. Interestingly, the mean income has actually increased, which reflects the fact that the rich are getting richer but the middle-class and the poorest in our community are feeling the pinch. Wages are growing slowly.
We all know that statistic that wages are growing slower than ever before, but I quote a more independent source than myself on this. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe, recently identified that record-low wages growth since this government was elected in 2013 isn't just damaging individual workers and households; it's threatening social cohesion and hurting Australian society. He said:
The lack of real wage growth is one reason some in our community question whether they are benefiting from our economic success.
Wages growth is a huge problem and this government has no plan for that. Reciting quarterly nominal GDP growth is not an answer to the problem that is bedevilling our economy and our society. Household debt is surging. There are 1.8 million Australians looking for work. When we look at unemployment and underemployment, we see a significant problem. There are a huge number of Australians that would like to work but aren't or that would like to work more. Consumer confidence is at a low ebb—for example, the fall in consumer confidence of 7.1 per cent seen recently in 'time to buy a major household item'.
All of these pieces of evidence point to households and individuals feeling like they're worse off, feeling like their wages aren't keeping up with key elements of the cost of living. But this government's response is always too narrow. This government's response is always to fob off those concerns. When I go back to constituents in Fraser after parliament rises at the end of next week, I'm not going to answer their concerns about subpar wages growth and rising household debt by telling them that slightly higher nominal GDP growth is going to help the Treasurer deliver a surplus ahead of when he planned.
The key point of this MPI is not only the government's inaction but the fact that, on our side of the House, the shadow Treasurer has put forward a positive plan, a five-point plan which includes actions that need to be taken right now. His plan includes actions such as bringing forward infrastructure projects, which the Reserve Bank has called for on multiple occasions; using MYEFO to update forecasts which, on key measures, are now clearly out of date; reviewing a responsible increase in Newstart, which is overdue; implementing a version of Labor's Australian investment guarantee—rather than just jawboning, actually doing something that would help investment in Australia's business increase—and developing a comprehensive plan to boost wages. Those things, not inaction, are what is needed.
I thank the member for Canberra for his contribution. I have to say that the Labor Party moving an MPI criticising the Liberal Party and this government on economic management is ambitious. We love ambition in this place. Like watching a bear try to walk on its hind legs or a monkey try to grind its own organ, we have watched that effect when the member for Canberra demonstrated that he really is—
An opposition member: Fraser.
Fraser, sorry—the member for Fraser has really demonstrated today that this MPI is definitely fishing behind the net, because there is very little there.
The national accounts show that the economy is on the right track, especially when you consider the global environment which exists now and especially when you consider that this happened in a quarter when many in the Canberra press gallery were telling our fellow countrymen that they would face a Labor government in the new term—$387 billion in extra taxes, overregulation and antibusiness sentiment. Is it any surprise that most people decided to keep their hands in their pocket?
Since we came to government we have done what we said we would do. We promised to create jobs; we've created over a million of them. We said we would pay down debt; we are now in surplus. We said that we would maintain our AAA credit rating, which was under negative credit watch under Chairman Swan's leadership; we have managed to maintain it. We have deregulated this economy so people are free to make their own choices about how they spend their money and companies are free to invest in the most productive areas. We said that we would make it easier to trade; we have had three substantial free trade agreements, and another two that will shortly be before this parliament. We said we would make it easier to invest and to attract investment to Australia, and we have done that. Most importantly, we said that we would lower taxes for Australians, because we believe that they know how to spend their money better than we do and that they should keep more of the money that they earn; we have done that already since the government was re-elected.
Why did we do all of that? We did it not because it made us feel good but because it did good. We wanted to lower the gender wage gap. We have done that, and it is now at a record low. We wanted to reduce the number of people who are dependent on welfare, and it is now at its lowest level in nearly 45 years. We wanted to increase the number of jobs and employment opportunities in our economy and in our country, and we have managed to do that. These are things that should be celebrated. We said we wanted to increase infrastructure spending, not because it looked good on a spreadsheet but because we wanted people to spend more time with their friends and family and their children than in traffic. I come from an area of this great country where it is not unheard of for people to spend four hours a day in congested traffic trying to get from the northern beaches to work in Parramatta. That's not right and it's not fair. It happened because the Carr-Keneally government spent 16 years doing nothing but tell people not to come to Sydney while, at the same time, those opposite under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government increased our immigration intake to 400,000 people, many of whom came and settled in Sydney. If anything is a greater sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of the Labor Party, it is the pain and misery that they have caused to millions of people of Sydney every single working day.
That is what the Labor Party's tradition is. That's where they will lead us and our economy if ever given a chance. That's what we saw when they were in government. It's been just over 10 years since we had the global financial crisis. Labor borrowed over half a trillion dollars in debt. They gave us pink batts. They gave us cash for clunkers, and now we hear they can't even use recycled plastic when taking $100,000 donations in cash. Wages were down, growth was down and hope was down, but chaos was up. Unfunded programs were way up and debt was up. Everything that should have been up was down and everything that should have been down was up. They left us with an unfunded NDIS scheme. They left us with education funding that was unfunded. They cut infrastructure and defence spending to record lows. They did more damage in six short years than any other government since Gough Whitlam.
The people of the South Coast are tired of waiting for this government to come up with a plan for the economy. While those opposite twiddle their thumbs, I am out every day talking with my constituents, and they are telling me their very real stories of hardship and struggle. Only last month I was out knocking on doors in my community to talk with locals about Newstart. I heard harrowing stories. There are 1.8 million Australians looking for work or looking for more work. In my electorate on the New South Wales South Coast, under the coalition government we now have the lowest workforce participation rate in Australia. At around 47 per cent, this is 20 per cent lower than the national average. These people are suffering while the government wastes time. Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg have no plan to try and turn things around for these local people who have to choose between taking their kids to the doctor or paying their bills.
In my first speech in this place I called on the government to lift the rate of Newstart so that people could be equipped for work. I so often hear from people who have given up because the Newstart payment isn't enough to help them look for work. Public transport is limited across my electorate, and the daily Newstart payment can be less than the cost of getting to a job interview. Yet the Prime Minister still says that if you have a go, you'll get a go. I can tell the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, that the people of Gilmore want to have a go, but they also want to feed their families.
There are so many ways that this government could be stimulating the economy, yet they do nothing. We know that the Princes Highway needs serious upgrades. This road is dangerous, and we know that fixing it can save lives. Between July 2012 and June 2017 there were 1,494 crashes on the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and the Victorian border, resulting in 30 fatalities and 350 serious injuries. Sadly, between December 2017 and June 2018, eight people lost their lives in accidents on the highway.
During the election campaign the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development came to the South Coast and provided bipartisan support to fund important works on this notorious stretch of road. Projects like these will create hundreds of construction jobs on the South Coast and boost productivity by reducing the traffic congestion that affects local residents, tourists and truck drivers. But the South Coast and regional Australia need infrastructure investment now, not years from now.
We know this work can save lives and will also stimulate the worsening economy. For months the Reserve Bank has been asking the government to stimulate the economy by bringing forward infrastructure spending to create jobs and economic activity. For months I've been asking the government to bring forward the spending on the Princes Highway. For months the South Coast community has been asking the government to bring forward the spending on the Princes Highway. We have told them how and we have told them where, yet they do nothing. People are dying on our roads while the government is finger-pointing and blame-shifting. After six years of the Liberals, our economy just keeps getting weaker. Household living standards continue to decline; real household median income is now lower than it was in 2013.
I'm continually hearing from local people in my electorate about what this means for them: how they can't afford their dentures, so they aren't able to eat and are losing weight; how they can't get access to life-saving devices such as insulin pumps, because this government won't give them access; how they have given up trying to find a job, because they feel like people have turned their backs on them. I will never turn my back on them. I will always stand up for those who are less fortunate in my community. I will continue to call on this government to increase Newstart to stimulate the economy through extra retail sales; I will continue to call on this government to boost wages by restoring penalty rates for workers who are struggling; and I will continue to call on this government to bring forward funding for the Princes Highway to create jobs, stimulate the economy and save lives. On behalf of the South Coast community, I say: fix it faster.
I have listened to the negative arguments put by those opposite. The Australian economy, whilst facing challenges and international headwinds, is in a remarkably strong position, despite Labor's pessimistic economic rhetoric. It is a difficult time for global economies, with both the IMF and OECD downgrading their global economic outlook and Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Singapore, among other nations, recording negative economic growth in the June quarter.
In the face of these challenges, and the uncertainty created by the increasing trade tensions between China and the US, the Australian economy has again proven its remarkable resilience. The Morrison government is implementing its economic plan, as set out in the budget: helping the Australian economy continue to grow, creating more jobs and delivering lower taxes. The national accounts show that the Australian economy has completed its 28th consecutive year of economic growth, a record unmatched by any other developed country. In the June quarter, real GDP grew by 0.5 per cent to be 1.4 per cent higher through the year. In year-average terms, real GDP grew by 1.9 per cent in 2018-19.
Since the federal election, the Morrison government has passed the most significant tax cuts in more than 20 years, and there has been a 50 basis point reduction in interest rates. Currently, the Australian Taxation Office has issued more than 5.5 million individual tax refunds for the 2018-19 year, totalling more than $14 billion. This money is flowing through to households and will be reflected from the September quarter onwards. The combination of these tax and interest rate cuts, the stabilisation of the housing market, continued high levels of spending on infrastructure and a more positive outlook for investment in the resources sector will boost the Australian economy.
The fundamentals of the Australian economy are strong. We have maintained our AAA credit rating. Employment growth, at more than 2.6 per cent, is more than twice the OECD average and more than three times what we inherited when we came to government. A record number of Australians are in work, the participation rate has never been higher and more than 1.4 million new jobs have been created since we came to office—with around eight of every 10 new jobs being full-time over the past year. In the national accounts, net exports, new public final demand, household consumption and mining investment all contributed to real GDP growth. Household consumption, which comprises just under 60 per cent of GDP, grew by 0.4 per cent in the June quarter. Mining investment grew by 2.4 per cent in the quarter. It was the sixth time it has grown in 24 quarters since the height of the mining investment boom in 2012-13. Importantly, there was an increase in mining related investment in machinery and equipment. New public final demand, which includes spending by all levels of government, rose by 1.5 per cent in the quarter to be 5.2 per cent higher during the year. Net exports made a substantial contribution to real GDP growth of 0.6 percentage points in the June quarter. Imports fell in the quarter, while export growth was driven by mining exports, which rose by 2.4 per cent. Company profits increased by 2.4 per cent in the quarter to be 12.8 per cent higher throughout the year. The rise in company profits was driven by strong mining profits, which were 10.6 per cent higher in the quarter. Average earnings, as measured in the national accounts, grew by 0.9 of a per cent in the quarter to be 2.5 per cent higher through the year.
Importantly, living standards continue to increase, with real net national disposable income per capita rising one per cent to be 2.7 per cent higher throughout the year. As you can see, the Australian economy is in good shape and the Morrison Liberal government has a plan to take the nation forward.
The discussion has concluded.
The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
(In division) The Leader of the House on a point of order?
I think it is a question of timing as to whether or not the member for Newcastle was on which side at the time the doors closed.
The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order?
It was very clear, Mr Speaker. If the Leader of the House is right, then he was standing up during a division, and he's out as well. So I think we're either sensible about this or say it's gone.
On the latter point, that's not quite right, okay? The issue at hand—and I do have a problem with this, and I regret it, but I've got to deal with it—is that there have been occasions where the Manager of Opposition Business has argued to me directly that a government member was on the wrong side when I closed the doors. Regretfully, I have to say to him that because of that I researched the matter, and the critical point is not the closing of the doors. It's the appointment of the tellers, which I had done, and the member for Newcastle was on the government side. This is something that she has to deal with. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
I am not disputing that that happened after you'd said that. What I'm saying is that the Leader of the House also left his seat after that moment. I am completely in favour of consistency across both decisions.
The problem is that it's not consistent with your earlier points to me; it's really not. Once I've appointed the tellers—
I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, I'm just saying it applies to both.
I don't believe it does. It's about what side you are on when I appoint the tellers. I am happy to hear a point of order on the matter from the Manager of Opposition Business.
I'm making a separate point about the Leader of the House.
I know that; I can see that.
Once you have appointed the tellers, there are two things that members may not do: one is to move from one side to the other; the other is to leave their seat. The member for Newcastle sought to change her vote—and I respect what you're saying about the decision you would make on that. The Leader of the House left his seat, which is also prohibited under standing orders.
The Leader of the House.
I think that any record will show that I was still in contact with the seat—
Honourable members interjecting—
Sorry, I can't hear.
Honourable members interjecting—
I'm just going to make a couple of points that I think will avoid the House—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Minister for Health, your timing is appalling. It really is. You've got to be either quicker or slower. I don't mind which one.
Members know I'm practical when I can be. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business: I'm going to rule that I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'm going to be practical here. The rule about members moving after the tellers have been appointed can mean that a member has been recorded as voting other than in accordance with his or her wish, but members realising they've been sitting on the wrong side after the tellers have been appointed have been obliged to remain in their seats, on the side they were sitting. So what I'm going to do is admonish the member for Newcastle. Realise the importance of a one-minute division. But, in order not to detain the House, I do in all fairness have to point out that at no point was the member for Newcastle sitting on the government side. I've asked members to take their seats. That's my ruling on the matter, but I am going to point out the member for Newcastle was standing on the government side. I'll reflect on this matter, but I'm not prepared to create a new precedent right here, right now. But please don't anyone think that I won't in the future. That's a warning to everyone in the House.
Just adding very briefly to my ruling, I point out to members on both sides of the House that, whilst the member for Newcastle was standing on the government side, in these one-minute divisions when members are crossing there have been many instances on both sides where members have not crossed to the side they're going to sit down on by the time I've appointed the tellers. I'm just being practical about it, but the message for all members is: please cross and sit down; leave your discussions about whatever you want to discuss until after the division.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
( In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Whitlam, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing orders. No further debate is allowed.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam be agreed to.
():
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Barton on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The original question was that this bill be now read second time. To this the honourable member for Barton moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Barton be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That order of the day No. 4, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 4 of 2019.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—This report sets out the committee's consideration of 22 bills introduced into the parliament, or restored to the Notice Paper, between 29 July and 1 August 2019, and 297 legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislation between 5 June and 1 August 2019. The committee is seeking further information in relation to one bill and has also made comments, or reiterated its previous comments, in relation to seven bills and one legislative instrument.
As members would be aware, the committee is a technical scrutiny committee which examines and reports to the parliament on the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under the seven core international human rights treaties ratified by Australia. This is in accordance with its legislative mandate under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
The committee's report provides parliament with a credible technical examination of the human rights implications of legislation, rather than an assessment of the broader policy involved. Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports and may have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation.
The committee's purpose is to enhance the understanding of, and respect for, human rights in Australia and to ensure appropriate consideration of human rights issues in legislative and policy development.
The committee seeks to achieve these outcomes through constructive engagement with proponents of legislation. The reports are intended to provide clear assessments of human rights issues that are accessible to members of parliament and to the public more broadly.
In its relatively brief existence, the committee has established a generally non-partisan and consensus based approach to its work, and this is an appropriate foundation by which to fulfil the committee's mandate.
As part of its role, the committee seeks to explore questions of human rights compatibility through dialogue with relevant ministers and officials. To this end, in this report the committee is seeking further information in relation to the Migration Amendment (Repairing Medical Transfers) Bill 2019. In particular, the committee is seeking advice as to whether the repeal of the medical transfer provisions will restrict access to health care for those held in regional processing centres and whether removing persons currently in Australia back to regional processing countries complies with Australia's international human rights obligations.
The committee has also welcomed changes made to the crimes legislation amendment (police powers) bill 2019. In 2018 the committee raised concerns in relation to a similar bill which provided a broad basis for the use of move-on powers at major airports. In response, this bill provides that the powers cannot be used in relation to people exercising their right to lawfully engage in advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action. The committee welcomes these changes, which adequately address its previous concerns, and has recommended that the use of such powers be monitored to ensure human rights are protected in practice.
Finally, the committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019, in response to a number of human rights concerns raised by submitters. I note that the disallowance procedure is the primary mechanism by which the parliament may exercise control over delegated legislation. As the committee has not yet finalised its inquiry into the instrument and as the disallowance period ends shortly, the committee has resolved to place protective notices of motion to disallow this instrument to extend the disallowance period by a further 15 sitting days. This will protect parliamentary control over the instrument pending completion of the committee's inquiry.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 4 of 2019 to the House.
I move:
That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I'll state the question. All those of that opinion say 'aye'; to the contrary 'no'—
Mr Bandt interjecting—
Mr Deputy Speaker, you need to state the question.
I've already stated the question.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mr Bandt interjecting—
I call the honourable the Attorney-General.
I move:
That the motion be put.
I'm speaking to the motion. I rose first. Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order: I was on my feet first, before the Attorney-General and after the motion was put. I'm seeking to speak to the motion.
I'm sorry, I didn't see that. I only saw the Attorney-General.
The tape will clearly show that I was on my feet first, seeking to speak to the motion of the Attorney-General. There's absolutely no reason why we can't have a debate on this motion with the call being given to the person who rose first.
I thank the honourable member for Melbourne, but I've made my decision. The question is that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I'm sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta. We're entitled to have a vote on that. There is no gag; we're entitled to have a debate on that question, and I'm seeking the call on that question. This is extraordinary! You have just put the question twice and you are refusing to allow debate on this question!
Order! I call the honourable member for Melbourne.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I move:
That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
The motion for the second reading be proceeded with immediately.
We can have an ICAC today and we should have an ICAC today—
Order! I call the honourable Attorney-General.
Again, I move:
That the question be put.
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
The actual moving of the motion just done by the Leader of the House was done after he'd left the dispatch box and while he was seated. When he actually said the words, 'I move that the question be put,' he had left the dispatch box and sat down, because he got the words wrong when he was at the dispatch box.
That's right, but I gave him the call.
Yes, I know you gave him the call, but he didn't move anything when you gave him the call. He then sat down, realised he'd said the wrong thing and from his seat said that he moved the question be put. That doesn't count!
But he hadn't finished what he was saying.
He was sitting down!
I didn't see him fully sit down.
An honourable member: He had his foot on the chair!
The member for Melbourne, on a point of order.
I have moved, as an amendment, that the motion for the second reading be proceeded with immediately. The Leader of the House has not moved that the member no longer be heard; what he's moved is something else. But, I having moved that, the appropriate thing to do now is to call for whether there is a seconder to that. It's not to move that the question be put, because I have moved a separate motion that needs seconding.
The question now is that the question be put. That's my ruling; that's the advice from the clerks and that's what I'm going for. So that's the question: that the question be put.
Honourable members interjecting —
The question is that the second reading amendment be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I was given the call and I moved an amendment—
I will just say to the member for Melbourne that he hasn't got the call at the moment, so no-one is hearing what he's saying. I've been following proceedings, and there are two issues. One was the allocation of the call. I say to the Deputy Speaker that he needs to call the person who he believes rose first. I've heard his explanation for that and I don't think that's at issue. If the member for Melbourne finds that an issue, there is ample precedence where the government can take responsibility for a bill such as this. I could go through them at great length, which I don't think I need to do.
Once the question is then stated, the member for Melbourne is entitled to move an amendment, which I understand he has done. At that point the motion can be moved that the question be put. I heard the member for Melbourne say—and I think that he obviously believes this to be the case—that the Deputy Speaker should be calling for a seconder. That's not the case, because the question before the chair isn't the amendment. It's well written up in the Practice. I'm happy to take the member for Melbourne through it; in fact, the opposition has been in exactly this predicament many times. Until an amendment is moved, seconded and then stated and before the House, the motion that the Leader of the House moved is quite right. It does seem like a steamroller, but that's how the standing orders are.
In order not to detain the House, I was watching carefully in my office. I'm happy to be corrected, but the motion before the House was the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. Whilst it might surprise the member for Melbourne, the Leader of the House is quite entitled to put the motion 'that the motion be put' at any time through member for Melbourne's speech, at any time through any seconder's speech, at any time up until the question before the House is 'that the amendment be agreed to', and we're nowhere near that. I'll hear from the member for Melbourne.
Just for clarification so I understand, given that this has all moved very quickly: in simple terms, the motion has come from the Senate. The bill has been read a first time. The government said, 'Defer the matter.' I moved an amendment to say, 'No, consider it immediately.'
That's right.
There will be no debate on my amendment about whether we consider it immediately or not because the Attorney-General is, in effect, gagging the whole debate and moving the question. If I understand correctly, and so I know which way to sit, the question that's being put is not the amendment about considering it immediately—
That's right.
because that has not been allowed to proceed, but we're considering the original motion as moved by the Attorney-General.
I'm impartial and just follow the standing orders. The motion that the Leader of the House has moved, that the question be put, must be put immediately without debate. That will be on the question that the Leader of the House has moved, not your amendment. In terms of your language, you're entitled to describe it any way, but, as Speaker, I need to describe it as: he is acting entirely within the standing orders and within the Practice. The Manager of Opposition Business.
The only remaining issue that had arisen was whether the motion 'that the question be now put' was, in fact, moved from the dispatch box or not.
Okay. I think there are two different arguments happening here. The Manager of Opposition Business is saying that the Leader of the House has not yet put the motion 'that the motion be put'. I'll call the member for Melbourne on his amendment.
We can have an ICAC today and we should have an ICAC today—
I ask the member for Melbourne to resume this seat, and I call the Leader of the House.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question is that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I have received a message from the Senate transmitting a resolution relating to the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in the resolution. Given the length of the resolution, I do not intend to read it to the House. The terms will be incorporated in the Votes and Proceedings and incorporated in Hansard.
The resolution read as follows—
(1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, be established to inquire into and report on:
(a) the Australian Government policy, program and legal response to the redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, including the establishment and operation of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme and ongoing support of survivors; and
(b) any matter in relation to the Royal Commission's redress related recommendations referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament;
(2) That the committee present its final report on the last sitting day in May 2022;
(3) That the committee consist of 8 members—4 senators, and 4 members of the House of Representatives, as follows:
(a) 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;
(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;
(c) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(d) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(e) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and
(f) 1 senator to be nominated by any minority party or independent senator;
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; and
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee;
(5) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(7) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;
(8) That the committee elect as chair a member or senator nominated by the Opposition;
(9) That the committee elect as deputy chair a member or senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens;
(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(11) That the deputy chair shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine;
(13) That the committee, and any subcommittee, have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit;
(14) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(15) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public;
(16) That the committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(17) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) That the committee have access to all evidence and documents of the former Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse.
I move:
That the message be considered immediately.
The Royal Commission into the Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was a turning point for this country and a very significant part of the parliament's response to what was the establishment of a national redress scheme. It is incredibly important that the implementation of the Redress Scheme is carefully scrutinised. Already, many serious concerns have been brought to light about its operation.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member for Barton has the call.
It is hard to hear myself. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, can we ask people to be quiet?
The member for Barton has the call.
Thank you very much. Already many serious concerns have been brought to light about its operation—about delays, about administrative processes for calculating payments, about the way people are being treated when they contact the scheme and about the efforts being taken to get institutions to sign up.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the resolution of the Senate be agreed to with the incorporated amendments as follows—
(1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, be established to inquire into and report on:
(a) the Australian Government policy, program and legal response to the redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, including the establishment and operation of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme and ongoing support of survivors; and
(b) any matter in relation to the Royal Commission's redress related recommendations referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament.
(2) That the committee present its final report on the last sitting day in May 2022.
(3) That the committee consist of 11 members—5 senators, and 6 members of the House of Representatives, as follows:
(a) 4 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;
(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;
(c) 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(d) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(e) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and
(f) 1 senator to be nominated by any minority party or independent senator.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; and
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(5) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.
(7) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(8) That the committee elect as chair a Government member or senator.
(9) That the committee elect as deputy chair an Opposition, minor party or independent member or senator.
(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(11) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non-Government member of either House.
(12) That the deputy chair shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.
(13) That the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only.
(14) That 2 members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non-Government member of either House.
(15) That the committee, and any subcommittee, have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(16) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(17) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
(18) That the committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(19) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
(20) That the committee have access to all evidence and documents of the former Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse.
I will not reread what I have already said but go on from where I finished up. In the last parliament, Senator Derryn Hinch was the chair of an important committee looking at the implementation of the scheme. This committee was not dominated by the government or by the opposition. It worked collaboratively across the parliament to make recommendations about how the redress scheme could be improved. This is what Labor sought to re-establish by moving this motion in the Senate.
We're disappointed that the government has amended the motion to give the government the chair and the numbers on the committee. The redress scheme hardly should be put into that political sphere. In the case of the redress scheme, it should not be government members and senators alone who have control of scrutiny. Many survivors of institutional child sexual abuse are rightly very distrustful of institutions, which is why Labor proposed a structure for the committee that would not give the government—or the opposition, for that matter—control. For this reason Labor does not support the changes proposed by the government. However, we will not oppose the establishment of a joint select committee; it is simply too important. Labor will work on the committee to hold the government to account.
I thank the opposition for their support for the amendments from the Senate as circulated and for working with the government in a bipartisan and cooperative way on this motion.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
I would like to thank the Senate for their consideration of the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019. The private sessions framework made an important contribution to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Subject to passage of this bill, the government proposes to recommend to the Governor-General that private sessions be made available for both the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. The government moved amendments in the Senate so that only royal commissioners may hold private sessions. It is important that individuals who may share highly sensitive and personal information in a private session feel confident in the process.
I would like to acknowledge the bipartisan support that the amendments have received from the opposition. I also note the amendments that were flagged in this place by the member for Mayo that were not proceeded with in the Senate, and I look forward to working with her over the next six months or so to begin consideration of the issues that were flagged.
Labor is pleased to support these amendments. These amendments would remove the ability of a royal commissioner to delegate to a senior staff member the power to receive evidence in a private session. The amendments address a concern that was raised with Labor by Senator Steele-John and disability advocates in relation to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability—concerns we then raised with the government. But while there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for a senior staff member with particular skills to receive evidence in a private session in the context of some future royal commissions, Labor agrees that it would not be appropriate in the context of the disability royal commission.
Labor recognises that survivors of abuse should have the opportunity to have their stories heard by a commissioner and not by a senior staff member, however qualified that person may be. While there was no suggestion that the chair of the disability royal commission would in fact delegate to senior staff members the power to hold private sessions, the existence of such a power caused understandable anxiety amongst some in the disability community.
We thank Senator Steele-John and disability advocates for raising their concerns with Labor on this issue. We also thank the government for working with Labor to positively and constructively respond to those concerns by moving these amendments.
Question agreed to.
I appreciate the opportunity to outline Labor's position on the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019. Indeed, I've done this already once this year, but, given this appears not to be a great government priority, here we are again having another go around. The Aged Care Act 1997 is to be amended, as in its current form it does not permit a variation to the region to which residential aged-care places are provisionally allocated.
This bill will allow the Secretary to the Department of Health to allow approved providers of residential aged care to move provisionally allocated residential aged-care places from one region to another within a state or territory. We understand that the government and the Department of Health are not seeking the power to move provisionally allocated places from one state or territory to another. The bill also does not allow for the movement of any provisional allocated places to be moved outside the state or territory to which it was originally allocated.
Under this amendment, providers must demonstrate that the movement of the provisionally allocated places is in the interests of the aged-care consumers and that there is a clear need for places in the new region. This amendment seeks to ensure that residential aged care is available to those older Australians who require it as quickly as possible and appropriately allocated to address local needs. There is no financial impact of this bill, according to the government, in the proposed amendments.
Obviously, there is currently a review underway by the Department of Health and the government in relation to how residential aged-care places will be allocated into the future. We may see in future that this legislation may become redundant over time if there are any alternative proposals that emanate from this Aged Care Approvals Round review. Much of the review into the Aged Care Approvals Round is of course based upon three recommendations from the David Tune review that was tabled in the parliament back in September 2017, almost two years ago. I will watch this review with a keen interest, given the emphasis on establishing an alternative model that encourages greater consumer choice. It has been two years since the David Tune review, but of course it has been six years since the Liberals came into government. Looking back over this time, one does start to question if the Liberal government has done anything of significance to help older Australians access aged-care services and get the care they need.
Actually it's difficult to think of anything that the Liberals have done well when it comes to aged-care reform. You only have to look at some of the anniversaries that are coming up in the next few weeks and months to show the complete lack of interest the Liberals have had in this portfolio. As I've mentioned, in six years there have been four ministers, and billions have been ripped out. The aged-care system delivers services to over 1.3 million older Australians. The problem is that the government doesn't have an actual reform agenda for aged care. It has lurched from crisis to crisis—ad hoc, piecemeal little bits that it's trying to fix. Essentially it has mucked up aged care so badly in Australia that it has had to call a royal commission—a royal commission into its own aged-care system, when it has been in charge for six years. It simply is not good enough.
Then we come to the home care package waiting list. One hundred and twenty-nine thousand Australians are currently waiting for their approved home care package. Seventy-five thousand of these are waiting with no care at all, no packages. It's not good enough. Under this government, over two years, the waiting list has gone from 88,000 to 129,000 people waiting for home care packages. These are vulnerable older Australians to whom the government has said, 'Yes, you need care,' and then said, 'But we're not going to give it to you; you have to go on a waiting list; you have to wait.' My office is getting calls from around the country, on a daily basis, from older Australians, their families and their loved ones asking when and how they can get the package for which they have been approved. We're hearing stories of people who have been approved for a level 3 or level 4 package waiting over two years. It is not good enough—another failure from the government. Sadly the government's own figures show that 16,000 people have died while waiting for their approved package. Another 14,000 have had to enter residential aged care because they could no longer stay at home waiting for the care that wasn't there. We've got emergency departments with older Australians going to them, and hospital systems under crisis, because of the aged-care crisis in this country.
The government has added some additional home care packages. They've gone into the system over the last 12 to 18 months. But the waiting list for home care packages has still grown, from 88,000 to 129,000. And we're expecting data this Friday afternoon for the July quarter. How many more people have been waiting? The figure that I quoted, 129,000, is just the figure we have from the March quarter. We actually don't know how many people today are on that list. The government only acted to put more packages in because of pressure from unions, from the sector, from the media and from us. We were raising it all the time, to get the government to act, and it only did so under pressure. And what we've seen is lower level packages rather than higher level packages, which is actually where the demand is. The 40,000 packages that the government has put in are simply not enough to keep up with the demand for care. After talking to some people from the aged-care sector today, who gave a presentation at lunchtime, I know that trajectory is only going to grow. The government needs a reform plan for home care. It needs to deal with this waiting list. It cannot go on.
The wait time really is a crisis for those people who are waiting. You've got people giving up their jobs to go and care for their parents, people moving states to go and care for their parents, because the system in place is failing them and their families, under this government's watch. The government needs to respond. It's not okay to tell somebody who is in their 90s: 'You have to wait two years to get the care that you need today.' We are one of the wealthiest nations on this planet. Surely we can afford to provide care for older Australians who need it, in their 90s. Seriously, what has it come to in this country? We hear all the time that a country and a society is judged on how it treats older, vulnerable people. Well, we're failing. We're failing older Australians and we're failing their families, and we're failing them badly.
Labor have, of course, been calling on the government ever since we saw the first waiting list in the national priority queue. When we saw that it was 88,000 we predicted this would happen, and we've been calling on the government all of this time, for the last two years, to fix this problem. I was encouraged when the Prime Minister, on 7.30 last night, said the budget priority is going to be to fix the home care waiting list. Well, I hope so. It's about time, because older Australians simply cannot wait any longer.
I've met with the new minister—the fourth minister—and I did appreciate the opportunity to raise with him some interventions. There are some things the government could do today to fix this waiting list. It knows what they are; why won't it do them? Why is the government so slow to respond? The David Tune report: it's almost two years since we had it. The Carnell and Paterson report into Oakden: how long has that been sitting around? The workforce strategy is about to have its birthday—even the royal commission is about to have its birthday! How many reports with recommendations to fix the system does the government need to have before it does something serious about aged-care reform? It is not good enough in this country, in this day and age, to be where we are.
The royal commission is expected to hand down its interim report on 31 October this year. I hope we're not waiting for three or four years for the government to implement its recommendations. Given the government called this royal commission, it is my expectation—and the community's expectation, the workers' expectation and the providers' expectation—that the government will actually act on its own royal commission and do something about the recommendations as soon as it gets them. We cannot afford to wait years. Older Australians in their 90s waiting for home care or waiting for residential care cannot afford to wait more years for this government to work out how to solve the problem. It already has some answers. It already has reports. It already has recommendations from experts. Why will it not act? The government needs to answer the question about why it will not act. The government needs to be ready to respond, on or around 31 October, to this interim report. I will be putting every pressure I possibly can on the government to make sure that it does the right thing by older Australians, their carers and their families on this royal commission interim report when it comes down.
When you look at the number of reports the government has had into the system, it is staggering. We had the Law Reform Commission inquiry into elder abuse. Its report was tabled in the parliament two years ago. There were 43 recommendations, the majority of which have not been fully actioned. We still don't have a national register of powers of attorney. Where is it? How long is that going to take? Two years ago the government got this recommendation and we still don't even know when it's going to happen. We've got the David Tune report, as I said: 38 recommendations put to government, more than half of which still have not been implemented. What is the government doing? Why is this taking so long? The workforce strategy has 14 actions to address future workforce challenges and issues with the existing workforce. How many of these 14 actions have been implemented? Certainly nowhere near all of them. At my count, it's probably two. That is not okay. It is not okay to keep commissioning reports, getting recommendations on how to fix the system and then sitting on your hands for six years and doing nothing while it gets worse. That is not okay from this government. It is not okay in Australia in this day and age for this to continue.
I want to quote from Professor Paterson, who, with Kate Carnell, wrote the report into what happened in Oakden in South Australia. I know my South Australian colleague in the chamber, the member for Mayo, will be interested in this. Professor Paterson said during the hearings last month:
I'm disappointed … to learn of the slowness in implementation of the recommendations and I am left with a sense that the 10 recommendations have all been accepted in principle but the devil is in the detail and I can't help suspecting that some of them are not actually being progressed …
So not only have they not been implemented; some of them are not even being progressed. These are into the terrible situation that happened at Oakden. Ten recommendations—surely the government can do better than this? We're two years down the track. I mean, really? How long is this going to take? Those people currently in the system—older Australians, their families and their carers—are getting desperate. It's clear the government is failing them, and failing them badly. We need to ensure that older Australians, their loved ones and their carers can have some faith in the system. What we're hearing in the royal commission shows how much more needs to be done. But, as I've said, the government already has a plan and a pathway: the recommendations it already has. It's about to get the royal commission's interim recommendations. It needs to respond quickly, and it needs to actually start doing its job—the job that it was elected to do, which is to govern for all Australians, including those older Australians who need care at home or residential care in a residential aged-care facility. This cannot go on. It cannot go on.
For such a long time, unions, workers, the aged-care sector, providers, consumers, family, the media and we on this side of the parliament have all been calling for further reform in aged care. We've even offered to work with the government in a bipartisan way to try and fix the system. Every time we offer, the government goes, 'Yes, that sounds good,' and then does nothing. I'm not going to sit idly by and do nothing while the government sits on its hands and does nothing. I'm going to keep raising this in every forum I can. I'm going to keep putting pressure on the government every single day that I can to make sure that it gets off its hands and gets up and actually starts to respond to some of these reports, that it responds to the royal commission and that it does better. It really does need to do better.
I've outlined some of the issues in the current aged-care system. Today is actually Thank You For Working In Aged Care Day. Today I want to say to all those people working in the aged-care sector—the cleaners, the gardeners, the personal-care workers, the nurses, the physiotherapists, the dietitians, the pharmacists, the visiting GPs, the managers, the admin staff and everybody that works in the system—the system is only being held together because you're so passionate about it. I know that you're desperate for more recognition and more staff, and the government needs to deliver that. I know that the only reason the aged-care system is still functioning is because of your hard work and your compassion as a worker in the sector. We say thank you to you today and every day for the important work that you do caring for vulnerable older Australians, their families and their loved ones. In conclusion, I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government’s continued mismanagement of aged care reform".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019. I'm very proud to follow after the member for Franklin and thank her for her contribution and the significant amendment. The purpose of this bill is to allow aged-care places to be moved to a different aged-care planning region within the same state or territory. It is the role of the federal government to determine the number of subsidised aged-care places available. The number of aged-care places is intended to grow in line with the growth in the aged population, not a complicated—
You'd think not.
It sounds quite logical, in fact: more elderly people, more places. It's very, very easy to understand. As part of the process, the current legislation requires the minister to determine how many new residential and flexible-care places will be available in each state and territory for the forthcoming financial year. The secretary or delegate will then distribute the new residential aged-care places among aged-care planning regions within each state and territory. Providers then compete for available places through the aged-care approvals round process.
This bill deals with provisionally allocated places—that is, those places which have been allocated but are not yet operational. And, actually, those places are not serving any benefit to the Australian community, I guess, because we need somebody in those places. Places may be provisionally allocated for a number of reasons, including where a building or new aged-care facility is still in progress or an existing facility is being extended. The aged-care provider does not receive a subsidy for the place until it has become operational and there is a care recipient in place.
As at the end of June 2018 there were more than 31,000 provisionally allocated residential care places in Australia. To put that into context, that's a bit more than the population of Maryborough in Queensland and a bit less than the population of Gladstone. This bill will allow some of those places to be moved to a new aged-care planning region within the state or territory. The secretary must be satisfied that the movement of provisionally allocated residential care places is justified in the circumstances. The department has previously considered applications for the movement of provisionally allocated places between regions. I stress that the bill does not allow the department to move these places between states and territories. However, the act as it currently stands does not give the department that power to move these places. It is one of the joys of being a federation, I guess. This bill will remedy that situation and align the legislation with what is already occurring. This amendment will seek to ensure that residential aged care is available to those older Australians who require it as quickly as possible and is appropriately allocated to address local needs.
Labor does not have a problem with this largely administrative amendment. However, the Morrison government's management of the aged-care sector more generally has been abominable. The waiting list for older Australians needing home care packages has continued to grow under—I'll be fair—the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. The latest data reveals that more than 129,000 older Australians are languishing, waiting for care. In Queensland alone there are more than 13,000 older people who have been approved but are still waiting to receive any home care package. That is 13,000 in Queensland alone. This is a failure of the coalition government, who are now into their seventh year in office. Tens of thousands of older Australians, who the ATM governments have assessed and determined that they need help to safely stay in their homes, are now being neglected by this uncaring government. Many older Australians are waiting for more than 12 months for the package that they've already been approved for, and some are waiting more than two years.
The reforms to aged care were about choice: older Australians choosing to stay in their own homes rather than moving into aged care. What older Australians have is no choice but to sit on the waiting list, pray for help and pray for mercy. As the list grows longer and longer, we're hearing more stories about the plight of these older Australians. We know that the former minister was looking at some interventions to reduce the waiting times for home care packages way back in 2018, but here we are in September 2019 and nothing has eventuated. We know that this government does not care about our older Australians, because of what they do or fail to do. If they did care, they wouldn't have locked aged care out of the cabinet. They wouldn't have had four different ministers responsible for this policy area in six years. There is no continuity. It is a disgrace. Older Australians, we know, deserve better.
Prime Minister Morrison has neglected older Australians for far too long. He refuses to take action in the face of tens of thousands of older Australians suffering in their homes without the care that they've been approved for and that they should be receiving. He has cut the aged-care budget, and guess what? These cuts have a real effect on real people. These cuts are hurting older Australians right now. For the past five years, he's ripped billions out of the aged-care sector. Obviously this has an impact. In his first budget as Treasurer, $1.2 billion was ripped from the aged-care sector. The coalition government is sitting on dozens of reviews with recommendations for action on aged care, but none of them have been implemented. They did nothing. Then, after six years of doing nothing, under four ministers and with news of cuts, what did they do? What was their solution? Call a royal commission. And how horrifying has the evidence been coming through this royal commission. It's horrifying for all of us with elderly parents. For the families that care for them and for these older Australians who rely on their care, this is horrifying. You cannot trust the Morrison government when it comes to aged care. If a nation is to be judged by how we treat our elderly and our most vulnerable, we are failing as a nation. It is not good enough and older Australians deserve much better.
Let's talk about this generation. They're the generation that got us through World War II. They're the generation that built modern Australia. We owe these people, yet the Morrison government is deserting them. In the face of the horror stories about the treatment of some older Australians in aged care, the Prime Minister, to his credit, did call the royal commission into aged care, the one established in October last year. It has now received more than 6,000 submissions and more than 3½ thousand telephone calls to the information line. The recent hearings in Brisbane were focused on the regulation of aged care. In particular, they heard evidence about the sudden closure of two residential aged-care facilities at Earle Haven Retirement Village on the Gold Coast. Sixty-eight residents, many old, frail and scared and some living with dementia, were evacuated by state emergency services.
The royal commission heard evidence that the closure was the result of a dispute between the owner of Earle Haven and the UK based CEO of the facility manager. This dispute involved a demand for the payment of $3 million to the manager. The payment was not forthcoming, and the owner was not able to provide care for the residents. This is in 2019—unbelievable! It's disgraceful that these older Australians, and many others, are being treated like this. One of the ambulance officers who attended Earle Haven to transport the residents said that some residents were crying and screaming as they were being moved into the waiting ambulances. The ambulance officer—incredible work—also said that some files belonging to the residents were not handed over when requested. That would have been health information and caring information. Please, those opposite, understand that our older Australians deserve much better than this.
The royal commission heard that the owner had a poor compliance record, with potential red flags about governance and management capacity dating as far back as 2007. Other evidence in Brisbane related to the care of individual residents in aged-care facilities. Evidence was put forward about medicines, such as psychotropics, being overprescribed. Other witnesses gave evidence that their dying family members didn't receive adequate pain medication. Another said that their relative was given a combination of drugs which actually worked against each other, negating their effect. That relative fell and broke his hip as a result of the medication for his Parkinson's disease not being effective. These are real people and real horror stories. It is awful to think of any older Australian suffering from such a lack of care. I'll be watching closely to see what recommendations come out of the royal commission.
As the member for Franklin said, today is actually 'thank an aged-care worker day', so I thank all of them Australia-wide for the great work that they do. I'd like to particularly mention the two that I recently visited in my electorate, both in Sunnybank Hills—the Carramar Aged Care Facility and TriCare at Sunnybank. I went to TriCare at Sunnybank Hills for one particular lovely lady called Mabel Crosby on Saturday because she had her 110th birthday. Happy birthday, Mabel Crosby, from the parliament. She was there with all her family. She had a couple of other people along—not only a federal politician but also the Premier and the Governor. It was just a small affair! And there were a lot of children and grandchildren. Well done, Mabel Crosby. What an inspiration. I also visited the Carramar Aged Care Facility, and I particularly wanted to mention the incredible professionalism of the aged-care workers that I met there. I've been to that facility many times, for Anzac Day and other things. The staff always show how much they care for the residents there, and it's quite heartwarming—on a more positive note—to think that there are such caring professionals working in that aged-care sector. We now need a professional government, rather than a group of people devoted to being the opposition to the opposition. We actually need people who govern, who actually do their day job.
It is a fact that we need a good government more than ever because the proportion of Australians aged over 65 is increasing. If we don't get the settings right now, it is only going to become exacerbated by inaction. In 2017 there were almost four million Australians aged over 65. It is estimated that by 2057—something that perhaps the people at the dispatch box might be interested in—there will be almost nine million Australians aged over 65. The member for Hindmarsh will be in his late 30s by then!
Dementia: we know it's a problem. A tsunami is coming. It's the second leading cause of death of Australians now. This year there are an estimated 450,000 Australians living with dementia. Without medical breakthroughs, the number of people with dementia is expected to increase to almost 600,000 by 2028 and more than a million by 2058. The crisis is immediate, but it's heading towards disaster. We need to improve and better resource the aged-care sector now. This Morrison government has been asleep at the wheel, leaving the most vulnerable Australians suffering. Many people with dementia have no-one to advocate for them. They are actually the real quiet Australians and their silence is being ignored and avoided by this Morrison government.
Labor supports the current bill; as was said by the member for Franklin, our shadow spokesperson, it is uncontroversial. But older Australians deserve much better. They deserve a government that will stop talking about Labor, stop talking about the past and start focusing on the future for all Australians. That is actually the way to be fair dinkum about thanking aged-care workers. Do your job!
I too rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019. Whilst it's been stated that Labor supports this bill, I wholeheartedly support the amendments moved by the shadow minister, the member for Franklin, as this government has completely mismanaged aged care. So much more must be done urgently to resolve the issues around the lack of aged-care services.
Firstly, can I say, as has been noted by others today, that it's Thank You for Working in Aged Care Day, a day when we can all acknowledge and thank those wonderful people working in our aged-care system for the remarkable work they do. In terms of this bill, currently the Aged Care Act does not permit a variation of the region to which residential aged-care places are provisionally allocated. The bill therefore amends the act to allow the Secretary of the Department of Health to allow approved providers of residential aged care to move provisionally allocated residential aged-care places from one region to another. But, importantly, it is just within a specific state or territory; the bill will not allow for the movement of any provisionally allocated places outside the state or territory to which it was originally allocated. Under this amendment, providers must demonstrate the movement of the provisionally allocated places is in the interest of aged-care consumers and that there is a clear need for places in the new region.
I now turn to Labor's amendments. There is a whole variety of aged-care issues that need to be addressed urgently by this government. We on this side of the House have raised many of these issues on numerous occasions. Indeed, largely these issues arise from a lack of funding and a lack of forward planning in our aged-care system. We all know Australia has an ageing population and we all know that more assistance will be required into the future. Of course, it's predicted that by 2040 we'll have 20 per cent of the population aged over 65.
Right now my electorate of Richmond is in fact a snapshot of the future in terms of age-care needs. We have a high proportion of seniors, with over 25 per cent of the population aged 75 years and older. So we already have a high demand for aged-care services, and that demand is continuously increasing. I constantly hear from local residents about how difficult it is to access the services they need. But this government has not made any plans to address these issues—not in Richmond or, indeed, across the nation. Not only is there no forward planning to meet growing demand; it's much worse than that: this short-sighted government has actually cut so much funding from aged care. They've cut billions of dollars in funding from the aged-care sector, and we see the results of those cuts right across the board. These cuts are really hitting some of the most vulnerable in our community.
The need for residential aged-care places is growing. The number of places available per 100,000 people aged over 70 is falling, and it's falling under this government. For example, in 2014 on the New South Wales Far North Coast there were 87 residential care places available per thousand people aged over 70. By 2017 that number had fallen to 76 places per thousand people aged over 70. What we're looking at in real terms is an insufficient number of aged-care places. And what we'll also continue to see are more people in need of residential care packages, as well as the fact that they can't access home care packages, which I'll get to in a minute.
The fact is that this government keeps failing our seniors. This government is the architect of insufficient packages and lengthening waiting lists, and the government's record on home care packages is indeed shameful. Home care packages are designed to allow our seniors to remain in their homes longer. This is where they want to stay—where we all want to stay. These home care packages take the pressure off residential aged-care facilities and take the pressure off hospital emergency departments, and they allow our seniors to remain in the comfort of their own homes. So I condemn the Morrison government for its inability to act on this home care crisis—the home care crisis which they have in fact created.
As at March this year there were still over 129,000 older Australians who were waiting for home care packages they had already been approved for. It is shameful that over 129,000 older Australians are languishing, waiting for care. That number keeps growing. Not only that, often those who require a level 2, level 3 or level 4 package will face a wait of over 12 months, on average. Many need that care right now, not in 12 months time.
Reforms to aged care were meant to give older Australians the choice of staying at home, but these figures confirm that the government's policy chaos is continually failing our seniors. During the aged-care royal commission, National Seniors Australia's chief executive, John McCallum, described the government's home care debacle as a running sore and a critical failure. He said:
We know that home care … is preventative for death and preventative for hospital admission.
We really haven't dealt with that or with the fact that people otherwise have to go into residential care or into hospitals, which are much more expensive. Mr McCallum said:
It's economically irrational, but we haven't dealt with it.
We haven't dealt with it, because it's too hard. It's the most difficult immediate issue we have to confront. The government keeps being told this.
The fact is that older Australians often enter residential aged care or even emergency departments instead of receiving their approved home care packages. As I've said, the waiting time between being assessed for a package and receiving a package is constantly growing. Less than half of all eligible seniors receive their packages within three months. Less than half, that is disgraceful! There are confirmed reports of older Australians waiting more than a year to receive the package they need and deserve, and some people are waiting even more than two years, but it gets worse—much, much worse. There are people who die before they receive their package. What more does this government need to hear? In March this year, Leading Age Services Australia suggested that almost a quarter of people who need a package die while waiting for it. That is shameful.
As the list grows longer and longer, fresh stories about older Australians waiting for care emerge daily. Local seniors and their families in desperate need and waiting for their aged-care package contact me daily. They are people who have been assessed and are waiting for the help they need and desperately deserve. I hear regularly from local families who cannot find residential aged care or home care, or simply health services for their young ones. We've heard also from the royal commission horror stories about the treatment of people in nursing homes because of the lack of funding from the government. It's just not good enough. These older Australians deserve our respect, not the contempt they've had to endure under this government.
Our seniors built this nation. They worked hard, paid their taxes, contributed to the community and raised their families. Now many of them, when there has come a time when they need assistance, are instead cruelly turned away by this government.
Despite the alarming aged-care figures, the Morrison government has put no new money into aged care. It has tried to pretend it was putting funding into it, but everyone can see it's not happening. It's simply not true; there is no new money. In the face of this growing crisis, not one extra dollar has been invested in Australia's aged-care system. Instead, we have seen the government strip funds from residential aged care and other age services in order to create a few paltry extra packages to make it look like they are doing something. Older Australians know what they're doing, the whole community knows what they're doing and we keep highlighting what they're doing. People realise the game they're playing. Taking money from people and giving it back in a different box doesn't solve anything. It reveals the government's very dangerous and irrational approach to the needs of older Australians.
The solution is very clear. What is needed is more funding to provide the packages that older Australians have been promised. As Ian Yates, the CEO of Council on the Ageing, said:
It's absolutely clear the Government will have to bite the bullet and put extra resources into home care.
It is that clear. It begs the question: why haven't the Morrison government done that already? They know we have an ageing population. They know the need for packages is increasing. They know that waiting lists are growing and waiting times are getting longer. So what is their plan? What is their action plan to address this? We know the government has no policy for older Australians, because we are not seeing planning or funding injected into these really important issues. What do they expect people to do? Do they expect them somehow to pay for services they can't afford? Do they expect people to pay out of their own pockets? Some have had to do that. Many, of course, cannot afford it and just wait. That is the reality for so many of them. I would like to hear what the government's plan is because there doesn't seem to be one. When it comes to home care packages, they are supposed to make it easier for older Australians to remain in their homes, but for those who haven't received their package things are getting harder day by day. Regardless of whatever reason the government might put forward, it is clear what needs to be done. There is actually no excuse for inaction because they keep hearing of the same issues over and over and also, to add to that, the lack of forward planning for aged care is poor economic management; it really is. The royal commission into aged care has revealed that a boost of some $2 billion is now required to address the home care crisis because not addressing it is costing more in hospitals because so many people are fronting our emergency departments or being admitted to hospital. It is truly chaotic and aged care is in crisis.
The Morrison government, I think, should start by apologising to older Australians, their families and their friends for its failure to deliver for the crisis it created. Labor continues to condemn this failure on behalf of all Australians. We're committed to holding the government to account when it comes to aged care. We won't stop until the government takes action on home care, provides the investment of new money that is needed to alleviate the waiting list and delivers the full services people need when they need them. We will keep pursuing this matter.
Looking after our seniors should be one of our main priorities in this parliament for the government. It is where their attention should lie. We have the opportunity to put in place sufficient resources for aged care, but we must act now, particularly with the ageing of our population. This is an issue that needs to be in place, properly funded and adequately planned now. We need to see a lot more action being taken by the government. And it is also in the best economic interests of the country to deal with the problems in aged-care funding and services now.
The lack of healthcare services, residential care beds and suitable home care arrangements for our seniors has flow-on problems for the wider community, not to mention the emotional and financial distress of families. This is resonating throughout many communities right across the country. As a nation, what we need to do is prioritise aged care and put in place the resources, the funding and the proper forward planning as to how we as a nation will deal with our ageing population. We need to have those in place to make sure there are appropriate levels of aged care into the future and we need to have the foundations of that now for our ageing population.
As I said, the predictions are that in 2040 we'll have 20 per cent of the population aged over 65. When we look across the country, the need for increased residential aged-care packages and home care packages will be extreme. We will need to ensure we have the correct funding and regulatory frameworks in our residential care facilities so we stop seeing these horrific stories of mistreatment that we have seen in the royal commission of late.
We need to see national leadership on this issue. That's what we need. We also need to see the government working proactively with the states, with the community and with the providers to make sure that as a whole we are providing a greater degree of support for those who require assistance in their later years. But it will take that national leadership which we fail to see time and time again by this government, so I call on those on the other side of the House to make their voices heard and to encourage all in the government to stand up rather than ignore it as they have done for six years. We are at this point of crisis because, for six years under this coalition government, we have just seen more and more cuts. As I always say in the country, 'National Party choices hurt.' I can tell you the National Party cuts to aged care have particularly hurt those people in rural and regional areas. They will be held to account for those massive cuts and what they have meant to our regional communities, especially for the people who want to stay in the communities they lived in their whole lives and want to have that support there.
As I said, in my electorate I see so many local seniors and families needing those home care packages and places in residential care facilities. I will always fight on behalf of my constituents because I do have an ageing population in my electorate and I see how desperate the need is, so I will always raise their issues here. I commend the shadow minister for the amendments to this bill because it is really important to keep highlighting the constant mismanagement of this government.
In closing, I reiterate today is Thank You For Working in Aged Care Day. I think every day we should be thanking and acknowledging our remarkable workers in the aged-care sector. They do an incredible job often at challenging times, particularly in the current environment with the lack of funding. We know that it is a very stressful job at times and, indeed, they are very much underpaid for the wonderful work that they do. I'm very fortunate to meet with many of them in my electorate. I know many on this side of the House meet with them regularly too. We know firsthand the great work they do in caring for our older Australians. But what our aged-care workers need and what our older Australians need is a government that supports them all the way with funding, with forward planning and by understanding the needs of aged-care workers as well. It's so vitally important. As I said, I totally support the amendments by the shadow minister. It's important for those of us on this side of the House that we keep fighting for our senior Australians who deserve to be treated so much better.
I rise to speak on this bill, the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019. It is such an important part of the responsibility we have as a parliament to make sure that those who have reached their latter years are treated with respect and dignity. What was really disappointing to see on today's speakers list though was that there is nobody on the other side, nobody in government, choosing to step up and share their views about not just this piece of legislation but what it means to people and how important this sector is. I really just want to draw the House's attention to the fact that the only speakers on this legislation come from the opposition and the independents, because we know how vital it is that as parliamentarians we are thinking about the whole gamut of people we represent. And, like many of the speakers before me, I have a community that has an ageing population. I know we're all getting old. Mine are getting old faster, it seems. The demand for aged-care places, for quality aged care and for quality aged-care workers is really top of mind for people in my electorate of Macquarie, so I'm very grateful to have a chance to speak on this legislation.
It is really sensible that this legislation, the core bill, is about allowing a shifting of places so that it can meet need and meet demand, and I absolutely support that. I think though that you can't talk about just that without looking at what you're seeing in your own electorate around aged care. One of the things that we are seeing in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains is an increasing pressure on the aged-care facilities, which are providing the very best quality care they can, but they're under pressure with the instrument that is used to determine how much funding they get per person: the ACFI or aged-care funding instrument.
Earlier this year, a wonderful small aged-care facility called Fitzgerald Aged Care wrote to me and wrote to the minister. I declare I have been on the board of this aged-care facility. It's a small not-for-profit community based one. It has a very long and proud history of serving the Hawkesbury community from its establishment as the Hawkesbury Benevolent Society in 1918. It celebrated its 100th anniversary last year. So this is an organisation that knows what it's doing and has been doing it for a long time. It's very small—a 39-bed organisation. 'Small but passionate' is how their chairperson, Rhonda Hawkins, describes them. 'Small but passionate about ensuring our residents have the best-living experience in our facility and that they feel respected, supported and safe.' Isn't that exactly what we would all like for our parents, our grandparents and ourselves as time goes on?
The Fitzgerald Aged Care board tells me that over the past year they have seen their government funding reduced substantially and have found it more and more challenging to maintain the high level of care and services that they strive to provide, and it's all because of changes to the aged-care funding instrument. In particular, they were a bit sceptical when the government said it hasn't made any changes to aged-care funding, because they know what they're experiencing on the ground. They have experienced cuts to their funding. That $1.2 billion that was taken out of one of this government's first budgets, which was a saving—it's a bit like the NDIS savings. You save the money because you don't spend it; that means it's not going where it's needed. That's a cut in my book.
Fitzgerald say they've found that the rules dictating eligibility for the levels of funding that people receive have been tightened so much that the actual funding they and other facilities receive has decreased significantly. As an example, they have found that the ACFI rules reduce the number of points for personal hygiene, making it much harder for a resident to qualify as high care. Put simply, it means there is less funding, so less ability for their caring staff to provide the personal care that's needed.
They also point out something that we know in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains—as anyone who has an electorate on the outskirts of a city will know—which is that you're disadvantaged compared to the urban areas in the way the funding works. We are considered to be part of a major city, but we are way out on the edge of that city, yet we are not eligible for regional care. So we're really in a no man's land of funding. It makes it harder to get the staff you need. You've got to pay more—all those sorts of things make it difficult. So I would really hope the government is listening not just to the need to reallocate places to meet need but also to the sorts of concerns that small providers are raising. They are trying really hard to maintain the highest quality of service, and we should be doing what we can to help them.
It is appropriate, as we are here on Thank You for Working in Aged Care Day, to give a real shout-out to the amazing staff who work in aged care. They definitely don't do it for the money. They do it because they really can see the difference they make to someone's life, to an elderly person's life—to the life of someone who might once have had the world at their feet but whose world has now shrunk to a very small space, whether that is in an aged-care facility or whether it's in their own home, if they are still living in their own home. A really big thank you to the nurses, the personal care staff, the people who do the laundry—I've had great conversations with staff in the laundries of aged-care facilities; they have a lot of fun in there while doing some really heavy work. Thank you to those who are cooking meals, which must seem like a constant job. And to the people who look after the grounds, whether for someone who is capable of going for a walk in those grounds or for someone looking at them through a window because that is what their world has shrunk to: a really big thank you for what you do.
In talking about aged care, it isn't possible to talk only about aged-care facilities, and this piece of legislation fits into a holistic look at aged care. Home care is the other area that has a really direct impact on what happens—on when people go into aged care, for a start. So I want to spend a few minutes speaking about home care, and I would challenge the Liberal Party and the National Party to have some empathy on this issue. I know it might seem like a big ask, and you can only pull one of these favours out every now and again, but it is a serious issue that has been vastly neglected. Imagine that your mum or dad is on the waiting list that exists for an aged-care in-home package. Maybe their health is deteriorating. Or imagine being the one who makes the decision to give up on waiting and move your loved one, who you know could stay living in their home longer if they had some support, into an aged-care facility because they just can't stay on the waiting list any longer. Or imagine you're the person who gets the letter that says, 'Your loved one has finally been given the go-ahead to get the funding for their approved aged-care package,' but the letter comes just months after the person has died. They died waiting for care that we all know they needed, care they'd been approved for. All those things are exactly what is happening to elderly people and their families throughout the electorate of Macquarie, in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury.
How has a government let this happen to people in our communities? I really don't understand how we could have got to this point. Each and every person on the opposite side of this chamber should really be ashamed of where this situation has got to. I would hope that in every party room and committee meeting they have each of those opposite is fighting tooth and nail to change this system. The fact that the government isn't addressing this problem in any way is evidence that, while we might have had an election, this is a government, like the one before it and the one before that, that really just can't be bothered to look after older members of our community. That's the only conclusion I can draw.
It isn't just aged-care packages that they have no plan for, I know. There's no plan to address climate change, there's no plan to stimulate the stagnant economy and, for goodness sake, there's no plan to be a government except to talk about Labor. After their six years of government and their re-election for another three, all I see is an addiction to playing politics, not to actually fixing the problems that really matter to the people in my electorate. Fixing the issues that everyday Australians are coming up against isn't a priority, and it comes at a real cost. For older Australians, those consequences and costs are very real. Perhaps those opposite can go back to the party room and remind everyone of a few figures. There are already more than 129,000 older Australians on a waiting list for an in-home aged-care package. That's a waiting list for something they've already been approved to receive. More than 75,000 older Australians on the list are receiving no interim package at all. According to the Department of Health, the average waiting time for a level 4 package is more than 24 months. More than 16,000 older Australians on an interim package have died waiting for their approved full package. More than 14,000 people have been forced to enter care facilities because they're unable to get access to their approved care package. They are the government's own figures, and it shows that there are more people on the home care package waiting list than there are packages in the system.
I will give you the example of Thelma. Thelma, who was then a 95-year-old from Blaxland in the Blue Mountains, living on her own, was assessed on 30 October 2018 for a home care package and was approved for a level 2 package. She was then advised that she faced a two-year wait. Yes, Thelma was told that she'd be waiting until she was 97 to get in-home support. Thelma contacted me in February this year. She was excited because she'd heard on TV that there would be a new allocation of packages. She then called the hotline to ask if she was in line for one of those and was advised that they'd already been allocated and she still had at least a 12-month wait. On her 96th birthday, in the July that has just passed, Thelma phoned them again. They said she still had up to a six-month wait. I spoke to Thelma yesterday. She is hoping that she will live to see the day that she gets her home care package, in 2020. To those opposite: I know you don't know Thelma, but maybe for a minute pretend that she was your loved one and you had the power to have her home care package implemented. Would you do it? Well, of course you would.
Everyone in this place would have a Thelma in their electorate. The fact that those opposite aren't in this place fighting for her every single day says a lot about the government and its priorities. Older Australians deserve to live with dignity and choice, and that is exactly what they are being denied.
Mayo is one of the oldest electorates in the country, with the median age hovering eight years above the national average. Almost one-third of the electorate is over 60 years of age. We are a wise group of people. For many of my constituents, finding an aged-care facility that meets their needs or the needs of their loved ones is an immediate and often daunting prospect. That is why I welcomed the government's announcement in March this year that Mayo would receive 221 additional residential aged-care beds through the 2018-19 Aged Care Approvals Round. To put this into context, Mayo received almost half of all the aged-care places allocated to South Australia in that round. The successful grants will enable the expansion of existing facilities in Uraidla, Aldgate, Mount Barker and Strathalbyn.
I have had the great privilege of visiting many of these facilities, and I know that both the community and the residents are excited about the prospect of new buildings and new facilities that reflect the staff's high standards of care and compassion. Perhaps even more important is the fact that these new beds will focus on dementia-appropriate care. Over 50 per cent of those living in aged-care facilities have dementia, and many of these people are living in facilities built several decades ago. In our regional areas many are 50 years old or older. This goes beyond mere aesthetics, as recent studies in dementia research from the University of Wollongong have discovered that particular aspects of the built environment have strong effects on the quality of life of dementia patients. Examples of some of these dementia-friendly care design principles include the creation of familiar spaces and providing links to the outside that allow people to see and be seen. Other factors, such as reducing the risk of falls and ensuring adequate lighting, can also be beneficial. I was equally excited to hear about the construction of a brand-new 75-bed facility on Hindmarsh Island, to be known as Coorong Quays aged care, which will be able to meet the ever-increasing demand for aged care faced across the southern part of the Fleurieu Peninsula.
While these facilities are under construction or renovation, the places allocated to the region are known as provisionally allocated places. The act provides that the provisional allocation can last up to four years; however, if the provider does not operationalise the place within four years they may seek a 12-month extension or surrender the place, and the department may revoke the provisionally allocated places. Alternatively, providers of residential aged care can apply to the department secretary to move provisionally allocated residential aged-care places from one region to another within a state or territory. Before the application is granted, the provider must demonstrate that it is to the benefit of the new region, does not disadvantage the old region, is financially viable and meets the population demand of the new region.
Following an allocation of places, providers can often have difficulties locating suitable land and navigating local government planning processes. For example, sometimes suitable land is located just outside a planning region, or local councils will independently determine that a planned 120-bed aged-care home should only have 100 beds. In such circumstances it may be appropriate to move the provisional places to another region. The department has carried on this practice for many years, but whether the act provides for the secretary always to do so was unclear. The bill will remove the uncertainty and ensure that places can be shifted from one region to another if the provider is able to do so.
Irrespective of where the aged-care facility is located, we need to ensure that we have the right mix of staff to provide the right levels of care to residents. I have long campaigned for the public disclosure of staffing levels within aged-care facilities. Last year a government led committee supported the passage of my private member's bill, and I look forward to continuing to work constructively on this issue with the new Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Minister Colbeck, in the coming months.
I would like to finish tonight by thanking everybody who works in aged care: the nurses, the cooks, the cleaners, the personal care workers, the grounds people. I know from my travels across my electorate and the time I spend in my aged-care facilities that staff go above and beyond the call of duty and care very deeply for the people living in their aged-care homes.
Debate interrupted.
Graham Freudenberg climbed inside the soul of the Australian Labor Party in search of the words that lay there. He came back to us with an entire language. When Freudy said the Labor Party was built on speeches, the identity of the master builder was never a mystery to the rest of us. He spoke to us in so many voices, but in each of them he spoke with clarity and power. He moved us, he persuaded us, and in a world where words barely outlast the moment in which they are spoken, he made us remember.
It was Arthur Calwell who scored the accidental jackpot when he hired the young journalist, one who had figured out that he loved words and their power to convey ideas so much more than he loved reporting. It was Calwell who was the recipient of the words that filled Graham with his greatest pride: warnings about the Vietnam war; warnings that broke free of the gravitational field of regular political rhetoric. Instead, Calwell was able to persuade his audience to envision the voice of right and reason overpowered by martial trumpets and drowned out by the hypnotic drumbeat of war. Vietnam was a very modern conflict, but Graham gave Calwell's warning an unsettling, almost biblical power that somehow managed to enlist the breadth of human history to the cause. As history went on to show, his instincts were right. Calwell was followed by a constellation of Labor luminaries, among them Bob Hawke, Neville Wran, Bob Carr, Barry Unsworth and, of course, Gough Whitlam. Each of those leaders found themselves armed with an alchemist, one who took the sometimes base materials of campaign, policy and political instinct and turned them into something precious that went straight into our hearts.
Perhaps it was fitting that a man with such powers preferred to keep unusual hours. There were many fuels that powered Graham through his long working nights. Lincoln kept him company, as did Churchill, Voltaire and Disraeli, along with a production line of cigarettes. And, of course, there was the great trinity of Beethoven, the Bard and a beer. You can't argue with the result, even when it happened incrementally. According to one calculation, Graham sometimes steamed along at just three words per minute. That's the sort of speed that might be familiar to scientists who study the movement of tectonic plates. But, as those scientists would remind you, tectonic movement can push up entire mountain ranges. Graham gave us so very many peaks. We can only imagine how things might have turned out if Graham had succeeded in being elected to the New South Wales parliament in 1991. But, with all due respect to the denizens of that great place, there's something fitting about Graham having been left free to serve the way that he did.
His name will be forever associated with the Australian Labor Party and all that it has always sought to be. He channelled his love for his country through his love for this party. Indeed, there is a line from Graham's eulogy for Gough that fits its author just as perfectly:
He believed profoundly in the Australian Labor Party as the mainstay of Australian democracy and equality.
Labor's best instincts were Graham's instincts. As he toiled through the quiet, dark hours of so many nights, he kept brightening that light on the hill to make sure that every Australian could see it. Graham may be gone, but his glow remains. Take a moment to picture him, perhaps with a beer in one hand and a pen in the other, in splendid nocturnal isolation but never alone; perhaps as an 11-year-old boy killing time during a bout of chickenpox by falling in love with the words of Disraeli; perhaps he is at Blacktown civic centre in 1972, Gough's hand upon his shoulder and Gough—inasmuch as Gough could whisper—whispering in his ear, 'It's been a long road comrade, but I think we are there'; or perhaps you'll picture him much more recently, offering this wise reassurance in the final pages of his memoir: 'If I have learnt anything in 44 years of political life, it is never to despair.' So we feel sadness now at his loss, but not despair. Graham's words stay with us forever.
To Graham's long-term companion, Tom Kusano, I say: you are always in Labor's embrace. As for Graham himself, it was an honour to have worked with him in Bob Carr's office for a short period of time. May he rest in something far more wonderful than mere peace.
Promoting and celebrating the Australian arts and Australian artists is one of my great personal passions. Australian books, music, art and film have been of lifelong interest to me and even led to an unexpected career as a newspaper columnist. As a newspaper columnist, before I was elected to this place, I would regularly write about our Australian musicians, filmmakers, authors and artists. Since being here, I've continued to work to highlight the importance of supporting all our artists to tell our stories, both within Australia and abroad.
Perhaps this is all part of being a proud South Australian. My home state has long been known as 'the' arts state in the nation, and I am incredibly proud to have secured several significant funding commitments that will further enhance our reputation. Through our $551 million Adelaide City Deal, the Morrison Liberal government will support the redevelopment of lot 14 on North Terrace, which will be home to the Australian Space Agency and cutting-edge technology, and also home to Australia's most significant Indigenous collection in the new National Aboriginal Art and Culture Gallery. I would like to recognise my colleague the Minister for Indigenous Australians, who alerted me to the national significance of the collection of Aboriginal art and cultural items held in South Australia, which, once on show, will be of national and international significance.
Through the city deal we'll also be providing $9 million to the Heysen Gallery near Hahndorf. This will mean that, finally, the work of Hans and Nora Heysen will have a dedicated space. This will sit on the same land as the Heysen family home and Hans Heysen's studio. This testament to two of our most significant Australian artists is long overdue. I was lucky to see the Hans and Nora Heysen exhibition recently at the NGA in Melbourne, and it was an excellent reminder as to the extraordinary talent of father and daughter. Nora, in particular, can only have been described as a child prodigy, as her early work shows. She was a trailblazing artist and became the first woman to win the Archibald Prize in 1938 and the first woman appointed an official Australian war artist.
The city deal also includes $3 million towards a new visitor centre at Carrick Hill in Urrbrae, in my electorate of Boothby. Carrick Hill is home to a magnificent historic house and gardens, as well as an internationally renowned art collection. Every time I visit another exhibition at Carrick Hill, I'm surprised by the extent of their art collection. Most recently, this was a showcase of their Australian art. I knew of Carrick Hill's British collection—most notably Stanley Spencer—and their French collection, but I did not realise the estate also included a range of significant Australian artists, such as Arthur Streeton, George Lambert, Ivor Hele, John Dowie, Lionel Lindsay, William Dobell, Russell Drysdale and Hans and Nora Heysen. The new visitor centre will allow Carrick Hill to expand its footprint and its tourist offering. It will become a new hub for the district, particularly for Urrbrae, the Waite, Mitcham and Brownhill Creek, linking with the Mitcham Hills Trail, which is also supported by the federal government, all of which will help attract more visitors to our region. Ultimately, this is all about celebrating our arts, artists and culture, from our very First Australians to our early European artists, and providing new exhibition spaces for current and emerging artists.
But, just as importantly, it's about providing year-round tourist offerings to national and international tourists, and year-round jobs for South Australians. When combined with the Art Gallery of South Australia, which to my mind is the best state art gallery in the nation, our National Aboriginal Art and Culture Gallery, the Heysen Gallery and Carrick Hill, we'll see South Australia become home to the most significant art gallery offering in the nation and all within 20 minutes of the Adelaide CBD. We will provide a new way for visitors—local, national and international—to understand what it is to be Australian, whether one of our First Australians or those of us who have settled here since. We will provide a way for people to understand our stories and our heritage—our people, our land and our landscape. Maybe it will help them to see these things for the first time or to see them anew.
Most importantly, we will provide jobs for South Australians and a new tourist offering that will once again see South Australia as 'the' arts state, not just during the festival season each year but all year long.
There is a recycling crisis in Tasmania. Indeed, we've seen huge piles of recyclables build up at SKM's facility in Derwent Park. Residents have watched with growing concern as these stockpiles have remained untouched for weeks. Moreover, only recently we've heard that some of this waste will in future need to be shipped to the mainland for processing because we still don't have long-term recycling solutions in Tasmania. Nationally, the situation is little better, with only 12 per cent of the plastic produced being recycled and a whopping 87 per cent destined for landfill. Clearly, this is unacceptable and, just as clearly, we need to start thinking outside the box for solutions.
Fortunately, there is a strong desire in the community to see the matter dealt with in a better way—so much so, that I've now lost count of the number of constituents who have raised this issue with me. Some are coming forward with creative ideas about processing and alternatives to landfill. For example, recently I visited the Glenorchy tip and was impressed by their innovative thinking about waste generation and management. In particular, the manager of the Glenorchy Tip Shop, Brad Mashman, has extensively researched programs in Europe which focus on reduction and reuse along with innovative recycling solutions. Mr Mashman told me about the alternatives which are available right now to prevent the generation of excessive waste in the first instance. Initiatives include the legislated right to repair, mandating longer warranty periods and making sure that producers design their products to last rather than to be replaced. Mandatory product stewardship laws for items like tyres, mattresses and e-waste are also essential to ensuring producers take greater responsibility for their products. In other words, if Australia is to get serious about waste, we need to get serious about reducing our production of waste in the first place, and the Australian government needs to get serious about prioritising the establishment of a new circular economy, as recommended by the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, in which materials are used, collected, recovered and re-used. To this end, a ban on single use plastics by 2023 is essential.
The other part of this puzzle is thinking creatively about what we do with the waste we have already generated. To that end I recently spoke to Steve Tew, who has extensively researched waste incineration techniques, like those used in Sweden to achieve their zero landfill goals. He's passionate about reducing the garbage heading to landfill as well as dealing with the waste already there. He is just one example of the many bright sparks looking to other countries to see how we might deal better with our waste here at home. And deal with it we must, because we simply can't continue to rely on dumping our waste overseas, like the 34 million kilograms of waste sent just to Malaysia just in the first half of this year, despite the obvious truth that dumping our rubbish in developing countries is especially unsustainable and unconscionable.
I believe the Australian government's commitment to phase-out waste export is, indeed, an opportunity to think creatively, to plan for the future and to seriously consider sustainable approaches to tackling the recycling crisis. But the federal government needs to take the lead on this by introducing mandatory sustainable procurement targets of at least 30 per cent and to set an example for all levels of government. This would kickstart a strong Australian remanufacturing sector and make the government put its money where its mouth is in relation to recycling nationwide.
I also applaud the Tasmanian government's proposal for a container refund scheme and I look forward to its implementation. I have persistently called for the implementation of a nationwide cash-for-containers scheme and I support the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee's recommendations to this effect.
Constituents continue to write to me, raising this issue as one of utmost importance. I am told it is estimated that there will be more plastic than fish in our oceans by 2050. We sure are living in the age of plastic. Plastic has been found at the bottom of the deepest parts of the ocean, in the air at the greatest heights and throughout our food chains. We need to take real action to reduce plastic production, and we need to put sustainable systems in place to deal with the waste we do generate. Around the world, nations are beginning to act, and it's beyond time Australia took a lead in this space.
The impacts of traffic congestion are far-reaching. Traffic congestion costs drivers money. It means more pollution and greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. But, most of all, the more time you spend in traffic, the less time you spend with your family. Traffic congestion is the No. 1 issue that my constituents contact me about daily. Not a day goes by when I'm not somehow contacted by constituents asking why more isn't being done to alleviate traffic congestion on the beaches. Many Northern Beaches residents have to travel over two hours a day within Sydney just to get to their place of employment. This isolation, of course, affects our economy and our community greatly. My own wife reminds me frequently that, ever since her workplace moved to Parramatta, her commute starts so early in the morning that she will often not even see our daughter before school. But she's not alone. Unfortunately, her situation is not unique for those living on the beaches.
Many people from all different backgrounds are having to forego time with their family and find ways in which to commute into another area of Sydney daily. If you count the return trip, it is twice as much time that they could be doing something else or being somewhere else. Not only that, but the Northern Beaches are home to many of the world-leading businesses, such as Incat Crowther, HIA Fraser and Pharmacare. These are businesses that are trying to keep up with the global market by employing top-quality staff from all around the world. However, this is made extremely difficult when the daily commute in and out of the Northern Beaches is so unattractive. Gaining high-quality staff is difficult. Businesses are faced with the choice of either losing their staff or moving away from the beaches, and both options negatively affect our economy and our area. These businesses don't have to ultimately think of the community economy in these cases, so they will generally choose the most attractive option, no matter how much they do not wish to do so.
The government is pursuing positive solutions in order to alleviate congestion and, as such, improve the economic, environmental and social costs that arise with traffic. The Beaches Link tunnel has been given the go ahead, and I'm pressuring the New South Wales transport minister, Andrew Constance, constantly to start construction following a $40 million funding boost from the federal government which I helped to secure.
Public transport is another answer to congestion. The people of the Northern Beaches don't even have a metro available to them—a large area of the city of Sydney without this useful infrastructure. I believe a discussion should be had over the viability of a metro line linking the Northern Beaches to the North Shore and Chatswood. This is nothing new, as it has been proposed numerous times before under such proposals as the Bradfield plan. It is a viable option for the alleviation of traffic congestion and has been well proven to work in the past. It would largely help the constituents within my electorate and would help to decrease the issues that I've pointed out earlier. Not only that, but a few weeks ago I even called on Uber Air to launch a trial right on the beaches following their Melbourne announcement. I have been buoyed by their positive response. I have been in contact with multiple other drone companies that are making similar innovative advancements in this field. As such, I'm trying to look into every viable option to alleviate the traffic congestion within my constituency and the issues that arise with it.
The Northern Beaches is home to three of the 10 most congested roads in Australia. Warringah Road, which is currently getting an upgrade outside the Northern Beaches Hospital, was rated the third worst road in Australia for congestion. This is not just a question of the economic costs or the amount of employment moving away from communities around Australia; this is due to the fact that for so often under the Carr-Keneally government, this sort of infrastructure was ignored while the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government invited 400,000 people to come into our community. It is time for us to do something about this, to future proof our communities and to make it easier for people to live in our large cities.
It was great this morning to be part of an event really drawing attention to World Suicide Prevention Day in conjunction with my good friend and colleague the member for Berowra. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and also the shadow minister for health were in attendance. We talked a lot about the issues that related to suicide, and highlighting the dynamics, particularly in rural and regional areas, was a particular focus for us. I'd like to take this opportunity to make a call to arms for a similar bipartisan approach to deal with the general issues of rural and regional health.
There is a crisis going on in rural and regional areas, and we need to get a full-court press on both sides of this place directed at the effort of solving it. I had the opportunity to meet with the National Rural Health Alliance this week. They have produced good materials focusing on this issue. I'll give a couple of quick examples. Rural people are 47 per cent more likely to have diabetes, 50 per cent more likely to have cancer and 20 per cent more likely to have kidney disease. That is just a sample of the sorts of health issues we're confronting.
I think a lot of this was brought home last night to anybody who watched the Four Corners report on the crisis in rural and regional health. One of the case studies they highlighted related to an incident that occurred in Bega hospital, which is in the electorate of Eden-Monaro. The program was a series of case studies; it didn't step back and look at some of the systemic issues we're facing. I could offer so many more case studies from my region that are even more tragic. Examples include the recent inquest into the death of young Naomi Williams. Naomi was a proud 27-year-old Wiradjuri woman from Tumut who was 22 weeks pregnant with a son when she died of septicaemia at Tumut Hospital in January 2016. Ms Williams had presented 20 times to Tumut Hospital, and her condition was not adequately dealt with. In the findings that were handed down in a packed courtroom in the Tumut local court on 29 July, the coroner, Harriet Grahame, said there were clear and ongoing inadequacies in the care that Ms Williams received and that she felt unheard by her doctors and staff. It was an enormous tragedy, which the community is still trying to come to grips with.
Another example is that of an 18-year-old boy in Tumut who committed suicide. It was a tragic situation. When we were in government, under our health and hospital funding agreement, we put $50 million into Wagga base hospital, which allowed wonderful new pathology facilities to be established there. The only problem is that there is no pathologist, so the body of this young boy had to be taken to Newcastle for procedures to be conducted, adding weeks to the trauma and stress for his family.
I recently had contact with a young mother in Queanbeyan who has a daughter who suffers severely from high-level autism. Her daughter is 13 years of age and has other issues presenting around her, as well. There is no facility within our region, the vast region of Eden-Monaro, to deal with that situation. There are two beds in the ACT to deal with kids in this situation, both of which were filled. Goulburn, the only health facility within reach of anybody in my region, is full of adults in difficult circumstances. Her daughter had to be held in the emergency ward at Queanbeyan hospital. She was finally moved to Goulburn temporarily, but the door of her room had to be locked because she was in amongst a group of adults. It took that girl's mother, who's a mother of three and a working woman, reaching out to politicians of all stripes to get something done. Finally, her child went to Randwick in Sydney. She lives in Queanbeyan.
This is an enormous stress for people in our region. We have an accommodation crisis for patients from New South Wales who come to the ACT for medical treatment. I'm getting reports from constituents who say that the family accommodation in the ACT has now been closed. This is a terrible situation that I have been hearing in all the town hall meetings I did during the last break between sittings. We need the New South Wales government to sit down with the ACT and resolve that accommodation situation immediately. It's causing great distress.
I've written to the Minister for Health to get the situation in Tumut addressed in terms of a health workforce, which is playing out around the region. In the short term, we need the Tumut area to be designated as a declaration priority area so that incentives can be used to get a medical workforce into the Tumut area. We need to get back to a health and hospital agreement in this nation that addresses this crisis, and we need to do it urgently. You want jobs in the regions? Get that health workforce issue addressed. There are 44,000 jobs out there, 25 per cent of them are health workforce jobs.
I've got to say that the member for Clark must have been reading my speech. I congratulate him for his focus, in his speech earlier tonight, on an area of plastics and its impact on our environment.
Plastic waste littering our oceans is a national shame; there's no doubt about that. And although they work hand in hand, my role as a special envoy for the Great Barrier Reef and my plan to develop a national policy on plastics are two separate issues.
Let me briefly touch on the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef remains a vibrant, beautiful ecosystem of immense value to Australia and the world. There are certainly many challenges that we must confront, but, remember, we are the best reef managers in the world—something that, as a nation, we should be extremely proud of—and I believe we're up to the task of meeting these challenges head-on. We also need to start striving to become world leaders in removing plastic pollution from our oceans. I'm determined to see a ban on single-use plastics implemented nationwide to address this growing environmental concern. I realise this won't happen overnight, but we cannot keep putting it off.
I have a threefold plan to achieve this. Firstly, we must address our consumption of single-use plastics, such as bags, PET bottles, styrofoam packaging and plastic straws. This can be done through a mix of education and legislation, but will also require a significant shift in community attitude. Secondly, we need to have a national scheme working towards recovery and collections. Organisations such as the federally funded Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger groups throughout Cape York and the Torres Strait do a wonderful job in this space, as do others, like the Tangaroa Blue Foundation in Port Douglas; however, recovery and collection work is currently being done haphazardly and in silos across the nation. Thirdly, we need to work with our leading scientists and agencies to develop ways in which we can process recovered plastic and turn it into a renewable and, more importantly, usable product or material.
The government is already acting to address this important issue. During the recent Council of Australian Governments meeting in my home city of Cairns on 9 August, plastics, reducing waste and recycling were firmly on the national agenda with the Prime Minister's announcement to ban the export of Australia's waste. It was great to see all states and territories unanimously decide to work with the Commonwealth government to tackle this important move forward. As the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, said at the time:
And I don't think there is a community you will walk into today or a young child that you speak to who won't tell you about the problem of plastics coming through our waterways, ending up in our oceans.
Not a truer word has been spoken, and by working together we've made a giant step in the right direction.
We are getting on with the job of delivering in this important space. Our government recently announced a $16 million investment towards the Pacific Ocean Litter Project to assist the Pacific Island nations tackle key sources of marine litter by reducing the availability of single-use plastics. Domestically, the government's $167 million Australian Recycling Investment Fund is already reducing the amount of plastic waste making its way into our oceans each year. Furthermore, a new $100 million investment was announced in this year's budget to clean up and protect Australia's oceans and waterways.
These are some of the positive measures that have already been adopted, but certainly a lot more needs to be done in this space. We have silos in each of these spaces, so we need to have a coordinated approach, from tackling the single-use plastics right through to the creation of a new industry, to the way in which we redefine these products. By banning the export of waste, the Prime Minister has provided us with an opportunity to ensure that there is a renewable component in contracts, and particularly in government contracts, that tenderers need to address to be able to compete for them.
Finally, I look forward to working closely with my colleagues Sussan Ley and Trevor Evans in developing a plan to rid our nation of its plastic waste and to ensure it no longer ends up in our waterways and oceans.
House adjourned at 19 : 58
It was a great honour to have been appointed as Labor's spokesperson for multicultural affairs by the Leader of the Opposition following the election. In the present circumstances, it is also a great responsibility to stand up for multicultural communities and for diversity and inclusion around Australia. This has also given me a great opportunity to engage with diverse communities right around the country to listen to their experiences, to bear witness to these and to learn what matters to different communities who have different relationships with government and different priorities. It has been a great privilege—whether it has been meeting with multicultural leaders in Adelaide; understanding how the Bhutanese community in Cairns is engaging with, settling in and shaping that great town; or celebrating the extraordinary achievements of Melbourne's African community, a vibrant community that have too often been demonised in this place and in the media when in fact they should be celebrated and supported.
My electorate of Scullin is one of the most diverse electorates in Australia, and that is something we celebrate. I was so pleased to join with the Aurora Community Association at their multicultural festival the other weekend. I pay tribute to the president of the association, Toni-Marie Wuelfert; the amazing Mr Goel, MC extraordinaire; councillors Lawrie Cox and Chris Pavlidis; and the hundreds of community members who joined in this wonderful celebration that typified how we in the northern suburbs of Melbourne celebrate and fight for our multiculturalism as something that strengthens our community, something that is not simply about people celebrating their own culture but about sharing it and recognising that, through that sharing, we grow as a community, as, indeed, we do as a nation.
I thought about this when I read the report by Deloitte Access Economics that SBS and the Diversity Council commissioned. It showed us something very important that affects every community. It showed us the cost of exclusion, of people missing out on opportunities for participation—economic, social and political. But it also highlighted the great benefit we can have if we embrace diversity more fully—a benefit that Deloitte quantified at $12.7 billion. This is something all of us need to focus on more in our communities and across the nation.
I celebrate the Aurora Community Association, and groups like them around Australia, for their work in celebrating culture and sharing culture. I join with them in celebrating multiculturalism, in committing to fight for it wherever it is under threat and in seeking to strengthen it and, in doing so, strengthen our community, our economy and our society.
I want to highlight one of the many not-for-profits in Mallee who support the vulnerable in our communities, the Mallee Accommodation Support Program. MASP has been in operation helping those in need for 25 years. One of its most successful programs is the Kokoda youth mentoring program, now in its 13th year of operation. This program takes a team of vulnerable young people, accompanied by a mentor, to Kokoda to do the 96-kilometre trek. To say this is life-changing is an understatement. These young people are clients of the service and would not otherwise have the opportunity to experience this challenge which results in positive outcomes in their lives.
There are some communities in Mallee who are undergoing severe hardship right now, and they need our support. While some regions have been fortunate and have had significant amounts of rainfall, there are areas in Mallee where farmers and communities are being significantly affected by the triple whammy of drought, water prices and labour force. Drought is devastating to our country, and this drought is beyond what anyone has seen before. While there are many other regions struggling with drought, the people of Millewa, west of Mildura, are currently experiencing their worst drought ever. I commend the farmers of Millewa, whom I met with this week, for their resilience and ingenuity and their support for each other. I want them to know that I have heard them and that I am exploring every option that we have to help them.
Water is a significant challenge now with the ability to access it and pay for it when the market has driven prices to record levels. Our government is committed to review the market and check for exploitation of the market and speculation, to bring prices under control. I am confident these processes of review will help our producers into the future.
The labour force is an issue that we are working hard to resolve, but it is an issue that in some cases has led to the exploitation of people. It is an issue that, if not resolved, will see fruit rot on the ground and family farms struggle to survive. This is an issue that I have been passionately calling our government to resolve. I have brought the issue to ministers to drive a solution that helps Mallee and Australia. Through all this, I commend the people of Mallee for their resilience, their industrious nature and their innovation when times are tough.
I rise today to speak about a great RSL in the electorate of Adelaide. I know that we all have RSLs in our electorates and they all do a great job in looking after veterans, ex-service men and women, and even local residents. Last Friday I attended the West Croydon and Kilkenny RSL and Community Club. I attended to speak with the president, John Lawrance, together with his very organised team, and assist them with the community grants that are currently taking place. While I was there I couldn't resist hearing about the history of the club. It has an amazing history.
The West Croydon and Kilkenny RSL and Community Club is indeed very interesting. The hall was built in 1927 in Herbert Road, and it still stands today, but, due to the influx of World War II members, it had to be extended in 1947 and a new hall was added to the original. The entrance was still on Herbert Road and then, in 1976, when they outgrew that, they built the current venue, which has the entrance on Rosetta Street. They continue to provide for the ex-service community and they play a role in honouring all those who have served. They do their Anzac Day dawn services and Remembrance Day.
They have a very interesting story. There is a memorial at the RSL. It's a memorial to Digger. Digger was a war dog. He was a stray dog who joined the Australian soldiers in the trenches in World War I, only to die after being scared by fireworks when he came back with the soldiers to Adelaide. As the World War I gas alarms rang out, Digger the brown and white bulldog would race up to his human comrades to be fitted with a mask. So the story goes. He would even take food to wounded soldiers stranded in no-man's-land, and brought back handwritten messages. Digger, the stray dog who attached himself to the Australian soldiers, has now been honoured with a memorial at the West Croydon and Kilkenny RSL and Community Club. As I said, the club is steeped in rich history, and many memorials remind our local communities of the sacrifices made by service men and women who served all around the world.
Recently, John Lawrance, the club president, wrote to me and brought forward a suggestion from his committee that they would like to plant a Lone Pine memorial tree and create an epitaph in memory of the Battle of Lone Pine. I thank John for the honour to assist him. We're currently making arrangements to see that the seedling is made available and ready for Remembrance Day.
Over the last few days and, sadly, continuing throughout today we're seeing the real horror and impact of the bushfires raging across Queensland and northern New South Wales. Currently there are more than 80 active fires burning across Queensland, and over 600 firefighters are battling these blazes under some truly extreme circumstances. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the hardworking men and women of the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services and their colleagues in the Rural Fire Service, which is full of volunteers, for a truly incredible effort thus far. Sadly, it is a long way from being finished, based on the weather reports we've been seeing.
In my electorate of Forde, countless volunteers from the rural fire brigades at Ormeau, Cedar Creek Wolffdene, Coomera Valley and Chambers Flat are actively assisting the QFES in efforts in Sarabah—in particular, down near Canungra. The volunteers from the Ormeau rural fire brigade have been active in Canungra, with constant rotations of crews and fire trucks in shifts of up to 17 hours, and one of their members is supporting the air operations at state operations control in Canungra. As well, Cedar Creek Wolffdene rural fire brigade have had three of their volunteers and a number of their vehicles supporting the fires down towards Yarrabilba. Fortunately, these hardworking volunteers can do this because, so far, we've been spared these fires in my electorate. Even more volunteers and resources have been diverted from Chambers Flat and Coomera Valley to further assist in this firefighting effort. They've been assisting with incident control, back-burning efforts and putting out spot fires.
The incredible volunteers I've mentioned are only a small part of the hundreds of men and women who have been fighting these fires over the past seven or eight days now. Our volunteer firefighters are an incredible bunch of people. As Jim from Cedar Creek brigade told me, the reason so many people volunteer is the great sense of wellbeing and community spirit that they feel every time they lend a hand to fellow Australians doing it tough. Whilst I'm mentioning these wonderful volunteers in relation to the fires, with the floods in my area in 2017, they also previously did an outstanding job of helping our community through those very difficult circumstances. Sadly, we continue to see an increasing number of homes lost.
In my last few seconds I would like to condemn those who have deliberately lit fires, and we've seen the police in Peregian Springs talk to some teenagers about deliberately lighting fires. It is completely foolish and stupid and it creates an enormous risk to our community. But I want to thank the volunteer firefighters and the QFES for the terrific work they are doing in very difficult circumstances.
Upon being re-elected to this place as the member for Macarthur earlier this year, I took it upon myself to write to the Prime Minister. I sought to work constructively with the government from the outset of the 46th Parliament to try to secure better outcomes for my community. I'm a big believer in bipartisanship and I think most members of this place would agree with me that some of the best work of this House occurs in a bipartisan fashion. At the previous election, Labor championed a number of exciting policies that were aimed at improving the lives of Macarthur residents. These policies were all fully costed independently. Labor would have been able to deliver them in government, so I see no reason for the coalition government to delay action on these fronts. Obviously, the election result was disappointing for the Labor Party and the thousands of Australians who would have benefited from our policies.
Whilst the coalition was given a mandate to govern, they were also given a mandate to listen to the broader electorate. So I wrote to the Prime Minister and a number of his cabinet colleagues in an effort to work constructively to deliver for my constituents. Macarthur residents voted in favour of my commitment to help establish a Shepherd Centre of excellence in Campbelltown for those children with severe hearing impairment. Labor promised $2.5 million to establish the centre, which would directly benefit and provide essential services to around 200 children who are deaf or hearing impaired. It's worth noting that the Shepherd Centre provides world-leading services in paediatric hearing loss and that presently there is a shortfall of specialist services in this arena.
Macarthur residents also voted overwhelmingly in favour of my commitment to $10 million towards a new paediatric intensive care unit at Campbelltown Hospital. They also voted for funding of $55 million to provide safety for the notoriously dangerous Appin Road. Additionally, millions of dollars were prioritised to ensure that our local train stations would have adequate parking for commuters. Three billion dollars was set aside to ensure that the rail link from Leppington to the new Western Sydney airport would be delivered, and there was also funding for a rail link to the Moorebank intermodal freight service so that freight could be delivered to the new Western Sydney airport.
Unfortunately, I never heard back from the member for Cook. Instead, I received a delayed response from his assistant minister assuring me that he trusted his colleagues would consider my letter and respond accordingly when they had time. Well, Prime Minister, ministers and members of the government, my door is always open to doing constructive things for my constituents in Macarthur. When you're ready to discuss the needs of Macarthur residents, I'll be waiting for you.
I rise to make some reflections on World Suicide Prevention Day. Today communities around the world will collectively shine a light on suicide prevention both politically and at the community level. Each and every day an average of eight Australians commit suicide and 180 more will attempt to take their own lives. In 2017, over 3,000 Australians died as a result of suicide. It is days such as World Suicide Prevention Day that allow all of us to spend some time reflecting on those we have lost to suicide and on how we might address this issue and to consider our shared responsibility in preventing suicide.
The loss of loved ones, family members and friends is heartbreaking, and the tragedy of suicide extends not just to those who lose their own lives but also to those who are left behind. I know this far too well, as during the winter recess I was one of those who experienced the grief of losing a friend to suicide. Survivors can struggle for years to understand what happened, and, indeed, work by the ABS indicates that a family history of suicide is a risk factor that can contribute to other members of the family also taking their own lives.
As a community we are often particularly affected by youth suicide, perhaps because we struggle to understand why, in a successful and prosperous nation like ours, a young person just beginning their journey in life would choose to bring it to an end. We also know there are real issues to be tackled in specific communities—for example, among our veterans or young Indigenous Australians. The suicide rate among young LGBTI Australians is five times the national average and 11 times higher than the national average for the trans community. This is a national tragedy in itself, which warrants more action and specific community based programs to support those struggling with sexuality or their gender identity.
It is clear that there are few issues that are as important as the work that is currently being undertaken by state and federal governments to prevent suicide. I am immensely proud to be part of a government that has made mental health and suicide prevention a key priority, particularly through the creation of the towards-zero-suicides target and the whole-of-government approach being driven by Australia's first National Suicide Prevention Adviser, Christine Morgan. The Prime Minister has made this a personal mission, and I know he has bipartisan support. The government has committed to spending over $4.9 billion on mental health this year alone. Included in this funding is $111 million for the establishment of 30 more headspace centres, taking the total number of centres in Australia to 145. I've seen headspace's work in my own electorate and I know just how important their services are to young people across the country.
The causes of suicide are often complex, and the road to reducing its prevalence will not be easy, but we are determined to make a real difference in this important area. It is right that we mark World Suicide Prevention Day, but success will only come when our focus extends to every day of the year.
Earlier contributors spoke about the terrible bushfires in northern New South Wales and Queensland, and I would like to add my own expression of concern and support for all those affected. I pay tribute to our firefighters, our emergency services personnel and all the volunteers who are putting their own lives at risk to help others at this terrible time of need. But I reject the contributions of those who say there is no link between what's happening with respect to the fires and climate change. Can we just stop arguing about the cause and accept our climate is changing in the most harmful of ways? It's incumbent upon our generation to act. We do not have to act in a way which is detrimental to our economy. We are smarter and more innovative than that, and we must meet our international obligations with respect to the Paris treaty.
I want to talk today about another form of tragedy, and that is death in the workplace. Twenty-four years ago I stood alongside then Prime Minister Paul Keating to officially open the Jim Comerford memorial wall at the headquarters of the northern division of CFMEU Mining and Energy. Sadly, there are now more than 1,800 men, women and boys—the youngest boy aged 11—on that memorial wall. Very sadly, in the last year—that is, between the ceremony on I attended on Sunday and last year's ceremony—one more name has been added to that wall. It is a tragedy. That is the name of Quinton Moore, who worked at the Bengalla mine. His wife, Shannon, and the rest of the family attended the annual memorial service on Sunday.
We were very fortunate to have the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, as the keynote speaker this year. He showed a very good understanding of the challenges of working in the mine working industry. He showed a very strong understanding of workplace safety and his determination that, while we have dramatically slowed down the number of names being added to that wall each year, we cannot be complacent. We must be forever vigilant and continue to ensure our mines are safe places for our local people to work.
I pay tribute to the mine workers' union for perpetually keeping this memorial service alive, because it does so much to ensure that we don't become complacent and we are forever vigilant.
I'm very excited to share with the chamber that I've been chosen to represent Australia at the 2019 United Nations General Assembly. Next week I'll be making my way to New York. I must say that it was a great honour to be chosen. I'm very humbled by the opportunity to represent Australia and vote on key international issues. The General Assembly is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative body of the United Nations, where all 193 member states have equal representation.
With the news of my appointment spreading around my electorate of Bonner, the positive response and support I have received from the community have been outstanding. I'm overcome with the support and the wellwishers who have offered me congratulations as I have spent the last couple of weeks meeting with as many people as I can before I go. Thank you to everyone who has stopped me in the streets, sent me an email or called to congratulate me. Your support means a lot.
I'm very proud not only to represent Australia but also to be an advocate for the beautiful part of South-East Queensland that I call home. To be joining an international body that makes decisions on important issues, such as those on peace and security, is something that I don't take lightly. From development to peace and security and international law, the United Nations General Assembly works together on a wide range of issues. I look forward to contributing to discussions and being part of the decision-making process.
The outcomes from UNGA ultimately affect the lives of millions of people around the world as they work towards attaining peace, security and disarmament; supporting development; safeguarding human rights; protecting our environment and strengthening the United Nations. It's a tremendous honour to be chosen to represent our great nation. I look forward to sharing my journey with the House and with the constituents of Bonner when I return.
Today I'd like to again draw the attention of this Chamber to an all-too-forgotten part of my electorate, a piece of Bean all the way out in the Pacific: Norfolk Island. However, more specifically I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate the remarkable achievements of a young woman by the name of Ada Nebauer. Ada is the Australian Outrigger Canoe Racing Association under 16 girls national marathon and national sprint champion.
In August this year the International Va'a Federation, the governing body for international outrigger canoe racing, convened its second world distance championships at Mooloolaba on the Sunshine Coast. Racing was conducted across six age divisions, with six-person and individual events. Ada raced in the under-19 girls and V6 events, with the Australian team, who placed fifth. Then, on Wednesday, 14 August, Ada contested the under-19 girls individual canoe event. Conditions made for a quick race. Ada overcame pre-race nerves to execute a strong start and led the race throughout and went on to win the world championship 16-kilometre event in one hour and 40 minutes.
Ada is just the second under-19 girls world distance champion, with the distance event having been won once previously, in Tahiti in 2017. Ada would like to thank the Norfolk community for all their support. It is an incredible result in women's sport for the community and for Ada. But she's not one to stand still. She's just been invited to join the Hawaiian under-19 girls to race the Molokai to Oahu event in Hawaii on 22 September, just before the Trans Tasman sprints on the Sunshine Coast.
I'd also like to draw the Chamber's attention to the amazing community service of Athol Williams to the electorate of Bean. Athol Williams has been an organiser with the SDA for 44 years. Over the past three or four years he has tried to retire, but his dedication and his capacity has meant that the SDA has not let him go until, finally, this week. Athol grew up in Canberra. He joined the SDA as a member in 1971 and then became a delegate and then, in 1975, a full-time official. Over that whole period, Athol has represented young workers from Eden to Goulburn and everywhere in between, ensuring they got reinstated, got paid correctly and were treated with fairness at work. I hope the Chamber can join in congratulating Athol on his major contribution to the electorate of Bean.
Earlier this year I participated in the annual Pollie Pedal, cycling more than 1,000 kilometres through South East Queensland. Not only was I proud to be supporting Soldier On, but I also met some outstanding service men and women and heard their stories. I rise today to speak about the stories of constituents in my own electorate of Hume who have dedicated their life to serving our country.
Camden local Bob 'Cocky' Roach is an 84-year-old Korean and Vietnam war veteran with 39 years service in the Royal Australian Navy. Bob's sons have followed in their dad's footsteps, serving in the ADF. Bob continues to serve the community today by volunteering at the Vietnam Veterans Association in Macarthur. Every month, my electorate office in Camden prints 400 copies of the Veterans News, a Macarthur veterans information service that Bob delivers to local hospitals, pubs, aged-care homes and the local RSL. He has been a Legatee for 26 years and currently has 80 war widows he regularly checks in on.
Shane Cheney, another Hume resident, has dedicated 33 years of his life to his country. In 1987, straight out of school, Shane enlisted in the Navy and has since served in the Army and the Air Force. After five deployments overseas, including twice in Afghanistan, in 2009 and 2013, Shane decided to leave a career of service after more than three decades. Like so many of our veterans he struggled with this adjustment. He sought help through Soldier On and Open Arms and was introduced to equine therapy. Despite having no experience with horses, Shane enjoyed it so much he became a regular volunteer. Now known as Spur, the pilot program, which started in Picton in my electorate, allows veterans experiencing PTSD to undertake horse care and riding with retired racehorses.
Whilst I was on the Pollie Pedal back in 2017, I met Garry Robinson, a fantastic Camden resident, who served in the military for 21 years. In 2010, after a Black Hawk helicopter crash in Afghanistan, Garry lost his left leg. After years of rehabilitation, he has overcome his injuries and has participated in all four Invictus Games. At last year's games he took home two silver medals, in swimming and archery.
Before concluding, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a great friend of mine, Mike Navybox, who died as he approached the end of his epic Grand Tours project, an attempt to be only the second amateur cyclist to complete all of the three great cycling tours in Europe. He was raising money for cancer research and raising awareness of early detection intervention and prevention of cancer and depression. As someone who had fought off cancer and depression, he knew what he was talking about. For your inspiration, charisma and charm, you have sparked and touched so many of us. You will ride with us forever on the hills around Goulburn.
I thank the member for Hume for his contribution. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020. It is a bill that brings into force a budget of missed opportunities—a budget that doesn't serve the Australian people in the way they should have been served when it comes to investing in the infrastructure, the community services and the education services that this country needs. It is a missed opportunity when it comes to addressing stagnant wages. It is a missed opportunity when it comes to closing the gender pay gap. It is a missed opportunity to fire up economic growth. It is a missed opportunity to properly support small businesses, many of whom have sadly had to shut their doors in my electorate in recent months as the economic downturn really hits them hard. And it's a missed opportunity for so many things in the electorate of Perth.
One of the things that has not progressed since the former Prime Minister Turnbull promised it is the Perth City Deal. The Perth City Deal should be embedded in this budget; it should be embedded in these appropriation documents, but it's not there. There is no Perth City Deal. Nothing has progressed since it was promised by former Prime Minister Turnbull. If the government doesn't have any ideas on the Perth City Deal, I've taken it upon myself to write to the minister with some of the initiatives that could be in that city deal. Indeed, I encourage all members of my electorate and all Western Australians to write to the minister with their initiatives that could go into this city deal, whether they be transport initiatives, initiatives that could help the people in the electorate of Cowan or initiatives that could ensure we continue to fire up the Western Australia economy.
One of the things that I'm very passionate about is a light rail for Perth city. I know Queenslanders are working towards a light-rail-like proposal in Brisbane city. In fact, Perth will be the only mainland capital city that does not have a light rail or similar service when the Sydney light rail eventually opens in coming months. There have been so many great proposals of light rail. It'll do something truly transformative for Western Australia. We could go with the Knowledge Arc proposal that would not only connect the great universities of Curtin University and the University of Western Australia with some of our most important tourism assets, including Elizabeth Quay, Kings Park, Perth Stadium and indeed thecasino, if that's your thing, but also connect huge parts of our business community together. It would be a shame for Perth to be the only city that doesn't have hop-on hop-off truly accessible light rail. I know that the member for Stirling is a passionate advocate for other light rail projects. The Scarborough Beach light rail proposal that is pushed by the City of Stirling is something else that would connect the Perth city to the beach, something that is sorely missing in our public transport network.
I've also written to the minister about the need to fund a Common Ground homeless facility. During the global financial crisis, a number of states received funding for Common Ground facilities. There is one in Brisbane. It does fantastic work taking people from homelessness to secure, affordable accommodation. Western Australia does not have one of those facilities and it is sorely needed. We've seen a huge increase in homelessness in the west driven by economic downturn, complex drug and alcohol problems and a change in economic circumstances that has really hit people hard. Our job in this place is to make sure we have services that help lift people out of poverty and homelessness. The review of the Common Ground facility in Brisbane done by the University of Queensland found that it gave government a saving of $13,100 per tenant per annum. Not only are you lifting someone out of poverty, but you are going to save the government money by investing in these services. I'd love to see it in the Perth City Deal.
There has also been lots of conversation in Western Australia about the need for an inner-city university campus. I have a slightly different view: we need an inner-city TAFE campus. We have some small TAFE campuses—Northbridge, East Perth, Leederville and Mount Lawley—in my electorate. They all do fantastic work, but, if I were given the choice, I would take a big new state-of-the-art TAFE facility in the heart of the CBD, open 40 weeks a year. One of the great things about TAFE is that it doesn't shut down for half the year—no offence to the learned academics in the room, who do very important work in that time when they are not doing important teaching and learning work.
We read a lot.
You read a lot? I have no doubt that I'm not the best-read person in this chamber right now, Member for Cowan. But I'd love to see a big new TAFE facility. It's something that could come in that Perth City Deal. The lack of investment in vocational education is historical. For the last five years, we've seen a wind-down, year after year, in investment in vocational education. I hope that the Perth City Deal—and possibly the next appropriations bill I speak on—might actually give an opportunity to increase that investment in vocational education.
There are many states and many places in the country that would like to see themselves become home to a national Indigenous museum. The work that's been done by the National Museum of African American History & Culture in the United States has truly allowed the sharing of many stories that had been previously not shared, not told enough or not communicated appropriately in other cultural institutions. Western Australia approaches its bicentenary in 2029. This is a long-term project, but it is the sort of thing that would properly reconcile a very difficult past for this country, in our historical treatment of Indigenous Australians, with what we hope will be a brighter future, making sure that we treat them more fairly into the future.
Then there are the standard community needs that you have. One of the huge gaps in my electorate that has not been addressed in this appropriations bill, and, indeed, was ignored by the coalition in the most recent election, is the lack of community facilities in East Perth. East Perth is in desperate need of a community centre. One option to fix that—an option that I know the Attorney-General and Leader of the House is a quiet supporter of—is to redevelop the WACA ground, a cricket ground that's stood for more than 100 years in the heart of Perth and has provided some of our greatest sporting heroes with a place to perfect their craft. It's now turning into a community facility, as we've got a beautiful new stadium. I always make the point of giving credit to former Premier Colin Barnett for building that stadium. It is loved by Western Australians, and he deserves due credit for that visionary decision. Sadly, it was expensive, but sometimes good things are expensive. It leaves the WACA with no clear direction from government and in need of huge upgrades. Turning it into a community centre with a gymnasium, community space and a piazza would be one way of making sure that we grasp that opportunity and fill that gap, the lack of an East Perth community centre.
The other thing that always concerns me when I look at these appropriation bills is that we haven't got any clear long-term policy when it comes to child care. I commend the government for trying to put more money into the early childhood education and care space. I really do. It is such an essential piece of our education system and an essential piece of making sure that people can participate in the economy. I pay due credit to the co-convenor of Parliamentary Friends of Early Childhood, who is in the chamber right now, but, unfortunately, the policies that are funded in this budget aren't actually achieving their stated outcomes. For long day care, fees have increased 4.8 per cent since December 2017, despite billions and billions of dollars of more money going into the system. In the government's own independent report on the new childcare system, 73 per cent of families said that they've found their fees have gone up or not changed at all. Less than half of providers, just 40 per cent, said they felt there was enough support from the government for the transition to the new childcare system. Eighty-three per cent of parents said that the changes have made no impact on their ability to get a job, go to work or study. Eighty-three per cent of parents are saying that this system is not making it easier to get a job, to get more hours or to get the skills they need.
The system isn't working. Yet we're appropriating more and more money, to do more of the same, despite the government's own independent report showing that it doesn't work. It's such an important area. Kids learn so much in the first five years of their life. It's important to allow parents to go back to work. It's important to make sure that every child is valued and gets those basic skills in life. If we can't properly deliver that, we really do have to look at whether the system we are continuing to fund is actually doing the job it is there to do.
Despite the billions and billions of dollars in this appropriation bill, there is no money to continue the CapTel handset service. For those who aren't aware of it, this is a service that makes sure people who have a hearing difficulty can use a telephone like you or I would. They can pick up the phone and the National Relay Service helps by speaking to the person at the other end and typing in what they say. It allows people to communicate with the outside world. It allows them to maintain, or gain, employment. To save just $10 million, in February next year it will shut. That service has no guaranteed future. That's wrong. It should have been in this budget. It's not.
Similarly, there is no money in this budget to continue Vision Australia Radio. This is a service that is based on the edge of my electorate. Technically it is in the electorate of Curtin, but it is in the suburb of Leederville. It provides a service so that people who have vision impairments—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:41 to 17:20
As I was saying, this appropriation bill has no funding for CapTel handsets and the 4,000 Australians who rely on them. It has no funding for Vision Australia Radio and the hundreds of people with vision impairment who rely on Vision Australia Radio to make sure that they hear the nation's news and that they can engage with the print text that we all enjoy in this place. This budget locks in a six-year Medicare rebate freeze. There's not one cent for the new Western Australian women and babies hospital. The budget locks in historic cuts to the ABC, historic cuts to ABC KIDS, historic cuts to ABC News, and a five-year program of cuts to vocational education. Worst of all, when you have a downturn in the economy and a need for active and urgent stimulus, there's nothing for Newstart recipients.
On the positive side, this appropriation bill does enable us to fund the valuable work of our public sector. I'll always stand up for the work of our public servants, who make sure that our nation remains one of the best, if not the best, in the world. They help you with everything from the tax office to Centrelink to making sure that the policy debates we have in this place are informed—sometimes dignified—but always in the national interest.
I'll just pause to note that today is Thank You For Working In Aged Care Day. Aged-care workers do so much to protect the most vulnerable in our society. They look after our grandparents, our family members, and our brothers and sisters. They make sure that we give people the dignity in their later years that sometimes we are unable to give ourselves. Aged-care workers do such difficult work. It is physical and it's deeply emotional. You only need to sit with an aged-care worker for two or three minutes to discover just how much work they do in helping the elderly and the vulnerable in our society work through not just entering an aged-care facility but also some of the very difficult moments as they approach the end of their life. I always take the time to say 'thank you' to the aged-care workers who helped my great-grandmother, Rooke, when she was in an aged-care facility before she passed—as a teenager, they were incredibly nice to me at a very difficult time—and then, a few years later, when I helped my grandmother pack when she was in palliative care. Aged-care workers really are some of the most important workers in our society. It's appropriate we take a few moments to thank them for that work. So, to the aged-care workers of Australia, I say a very, very big thank you for everything that you do.
There are about 1,700 aged-care places in my electorate, but we have some 17,000 people over the age of 70 in the electorate of Perth. We need more aged-care workers. I talk about the funding of TAFE. We talk about making sure that we have the workforce of the future. When we talk about the challenges of cutting vocational education, there is also a challenge in terms of cutting our future aged-care workforce. It's a great career. It is a profession. I think that, if we're honest in this place, many of us would not have either the guts or the dedication to do that job well and, unfortunately, many of us would look at the pay packets of those who work in aged care and say, 'That is a ridiculously low wage for that incredibly important work.' So, on Thank You For Working In Aged Care Day, I'm going to conclude my remarks by saying thank you to the aged-care workers of Australia. You deserve our absolute support, you deserve our absolute gratitude and you deserve more funding, both for your wages and for the facilities in which you work.
Bennelong is thriving right now thanks to the policies of this government and the multiple programs that I'm running locally. Bennelong has some challenges, but these challenges lead to great opportunity. We're arguably the most multicultural electorate in the country, but this has allowed us to grow with understanding and respect and has led to a number of initiatives to bring our own communities closer together. We have a booming population thanks to large amounts of development, or overdevelopment, depending on which traffic jam you're sitting in, but we have committed to local infrastructure to help address the large gaps in our transport capabilities.
Our growing population is leading to a boom in students, so we are reaching out to our schools and students with programs to help them grow and help our communities grow with them. Education is arguably the most important thing we deal with in this place. The decisions we make for our children today will shape Australia for decades to come. If Australia can support our students and schools now, we will ensure that our future is shaped by Australians with intelligence, empathy and opportunities to grow. That's why I'm so happy that our government is delivering record funding for schools and new measures to equip Australians with the skills they need. The current funding for schools will reach a record $19.9 billion this year, 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 will increase by around 52 per cent per student over the next decade to 2029. Additionally, 6,822 local families in Bennelong are benefitting from the new childcare package. This vital fund will help our booming local families and schools.
Additionally, the government has launched a new Local Schools Community Fund, which makes possible funding up to $200,000 to each federal electorate. The 2019-20 budget has provided $30.2 million for the Local Schools Community Fund to provide all schools—government, Catholic and independent—with funding for small-scale projects, which will benefit students and school communities. The Local Schools Community Fund will offer grants between $1,000 and $20,000 for new equipment, building projects and/or additional targeted support—just a few of the examples of the great opportunities this fund could provide to local schools.
Other projects could include small-scale extensions, classroom refurbishments, new computer facilities, mental health and counselling services, playground equipment, library resources or sports facilities. The fund supports the Australian government's commitment to education by contributing funding for those schools in each of the 151 federal electorates. This not only fosters an even greater learning environment where students are able to reach their full potential but also allows more effective and efficient learning environments for students, teachers and the whole school community alike. Schools may lodge one application, and where a school is composed of multiple campuses a school may submit an application for each campus to fund a project between $1,000 and $20,000. Applications must be submitted before 30 September. I encourage all schools in Bennelong to take advantage of this opportunity and to really consider what project will have the greatest positive impact on the entire school community. I wish each and every school all the best for their application process.
Providing funding to schools is of course essential. This government is not only a source of money but also a source of ideas and initiatives. That's why I have started a number of programs with my local schools designed not only to educate but also to grow community cohesion and to prepare students for the world of tomorrow. The first of these is the Bennelong STEM challenge. Educating our future generations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics holds the key to our growth and prosperity as a nation. STEM has received a great deal of attention in recent years, and rightly so. STEM affects almost every aspect of our lives, whether it is through the food we eat, the clothes we wear, how we get to work or how we relax. STEM is indispensable to all of these facets of our lives and many others. For our economy, STEM is the engine that will power our growth into the future. It is central to many of the growing sectors of our economy, such as health, education, finance, mining and manufacturing.
With this in mind, it should be clear to see why training in STEM must be an important pillar of our education system. All too often, people hear the term STEM and think it's coding or technology. This is only partly true. At its core, STEM is a way of thinking. It's about how we critically analyse a problem and create solutions for it. It fosters critical inquiry, lateral thinking and problem-solving, irrespective of which aspect of STEM you study.
For the last two years, we have hosted the Bennelong Schools STEM Challenge in conjunction with Re-Engineering Australia and our friends at Medtronic. Last year's event was a stunning success and featured dozens of schoolchildren using 3D software to design a medical centre for the surface of Mars. It was an excellent opportunity for schoolchildren—many of whom were only in years 5 and 6—to show off their extraordinary talent and their problem-solving abilities. The event will be on again this year, and I can't wait to see what our schools will have in store for us.
Despite shining examples of STEM in schools, such as this, there remains a great deal of work to be done to ensure our younger generations are being given sufficient instruction in the STEM disciplines. Evidence from the OECD indicators suggests that Australian primary school children are spending an average of only seven per cent of their time on science. This is far too low. However, it can be rectified by introducing more STEM qualified teachers early in our education system and prioritising STEM teaching in curriculums. I have every faith this government is up to the task of equipping our school systems to teach STEM. Already the federal government has created a $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda, which includes $64 million to fund early learning and school STEM initiatives. In addition, the government has launched Digital Literacy School Grants, digital technology massive open online courses and the Principals as STEM Leaders research project. These demonstrate this government cares deeply about the role of STEM in our education system and is committed to expanding it.
The Bennelong Cup is another one of the fantastic initiatives we've run for students in Bennelong. This table tennis tournament for local schools will this year be held for the 10th time in consecutive years, which is an outstanding achievement. Back in 2010, I arranged for table tennis tables to be given for free to every school in the electorate, thanks to the generous sponsorship of Hyundai. But after all these years in the rough and tumble world of school playgrounds, some of them were looking a bit worse for wear, so I've arranged for them all to be replaced thanks again to the extraordinary generosity of Hyundai. These have been rolling out over the last few months, and I'm hopeful that we'll get them to most schools before cup time.
The Bennelong Cup seems like a bit of fun, but it is underscored by a very important message. Bennelong is one of the most multicultural electorates in the country, with large numbers of families from China, Korea, Armenia, Italy, India and many more places. While this gives us a very rich cultural tapestry in our streets and shops, it often leads to segregation in our classrooms and particularly in our playgrounds. A simple fun sport like table tennis can bridge this divide. Not everybody can play cricket or footy, but everybody can play table tennis, and playing sport together creates friendships that cross cultural divides. The Bennelong Cup looks like it is about sport, but it's actually about something much more important—community cohesion and building friendships.
It's not only in our schools that our students are seeing the benefits of our investments, both national and local. This government has also made commitments to our local soccer clubs, investing $450,000 into the Roselea sports fields, which run along the back of three local schools. Our local scouts are also getting some much needed funds to redesign their Meadowbank boatshed. This will be a wonderful new facility, providing both space for scout groups across Bennelong and a new wharf and water access for the residents of Meadowbank. This is a corner of our community which has grown at huge rates over the past few years, and this will provide a much needed public amenity.
Before I leave this appropriations debate, it would be irresponsible to sit down without addressing the tax breaks included in this year's budget. While the budget forecasts a surplus, it also delivers an additional $158 billion in income tax relief for hardworking Australians. This is on top of the $144 billion in tax cuts locked in by legislation last year. The government will provide additional funds and relief for 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 for a dual-income family. Over 10 million Australians are estimated to benefit from the offset, with around 4.5 million individuals estimated to receive the maximum benefit for the 2018-19 income year. Some 78,852 taxpayers in Bennelong will benefit from tax relief in 2018-19 as a result of the government's enhanced Personal Income Tax Plan, with 29,663 receiving the full tax offset of $1,080.
Considering the fantastic things this government is doing both locally and around Australia, it's no surprise that we received a ringing endorsement at the polls in May. I look forward to three more years of these sorts of initiatives.
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills. In commenting on these bills, I will make some broader observations about the government's current budget strategy, and then I will make some observations about how it is impacting on people in my electorate of Fraser.
This debate on the appropriation bills is a very important one. The state of the economy is of great concern to many people in my electorate and also, I'm confident in saying, more broadly across the nation. At its heart, the debate that we're currently having about the economy, and how the budget affects the economy, is a debate about Australia's future, our economic wellbeing as a nation, and the quality of life that we should provide for our citizens and for our children. I will contend in my contribution on these bills that the current settings that have been put in place by the government are not providing an appropriate response to either the short-term or long-term challenges currently being faced by our nation.
When we look at the situation currently being faced by the Australian economy and, indeed, by our society we see that economic growth in Australia is at its lowest level since the global financial crisis and Australia is currently enduring a per capita recession. The only thing that is sustaining our economic aggregates at anywhere even approaching reasonable levels is the high level of population growth at present—high by OECD standards, that is. Indeed, what we have is an economy in which economic aggregates are only being maintained in positive territory by high levels of immigration. Household living standards have declined under this government, with real household median income lower than it was in 2013, when this government came to power. Wages are growing at one-sixth of the pace of profits, with this government presiding over the worst wages growth on record. I'm sure this is something every member of this House is hearing from people in their electorates.
Around 1.8 million Australians are looking for work or for more work. Underpinning that statistic is the fact that underemployment has risen consistently under this government, from around seven per cent when Labor left office to 8.4 per cent today. Indeed, it rose by a further 0.2 per cent in just the last month. This reflects the fact that there are many people in our communities who want to work more to offset falling or very slow growth in wages, or who want to use the additional hours worked to deal with issues such as record levels of household debt. Household debt has surged to record levels, increasing by $650 billion under the current government, to 190 per cent of disposable income. Consumption growth is weak and consumer confidence is down. All of the statistics that I've just mentioned really go to how well-off households are, how well-off individual workers and families are and how confident they're feeling about the economy. On a whole range of key economic metrics the economy is doing poorly, and on a number of metrics things are going backwards. Many households are struggling.
It's also important to look at the economy from a macroeconomic level. At that level, things also look problematic on a number of fronts. Productivity is problematic and, indeed, we've seen very, very slow productivity growth for a long time. There has been no overall increase in measured labour productivity for more than two years, and eight of the last 10 quarters have been negative. This is a very concerning trend, in that long-term growth in wages is only achievable if productivity growth underpinning those wages is itself sustainable. Another macroeconomic indicator of concern is gross debt, which has risen to over half a trillion dollars. Then, of course, there are a range of other measures, which I'll talk about more in a moment. Business investment is down 20 per cent and other investment measures are also down. When we look at the economy from a macroeconomic level, there are also a range of stressors. There are a range of concerning trends that, we would argue, this government does not address in this current budget or in its broader economic strategy.
I will just make a couple of broader observations about the macroeconomic situation that we find ourselves in. Firstly, in this situation where a number of macroeconomic indicators are showing concerning signs, what we find is the RBA trying to take action to deal with these by cutting interest rates to record levels. We have a cash rate of one per cent, which is significantly lower than it was at the worst point of the GFC. Yet, at the same time, we have a government that is extremely focused on providing a surplus, with no attention being paid to other strategies that might be put in place. So what we really have is the two arms of policy—monetary policy and fiscal policy—not working in as aligned a way as they should be, and that's why we have all sorts of mixed signals in the economy at the moment. That's why we have the RBA constantly calling for more action, more investment and more of a strategy on wages growth. The Reserve Bank is constantly saying monetary policy alone can't solve these problems. Indeed, that's something which we're seeing from central banks around the world. Yet we have a government whose economic focus is too narrow. Nobody's arguing that surpluses aren't a good thing in the main; nobody's saying that we shouldn't have responsible fiscal management. But we can't have an economic strategy that is monofocused on just that and doesn't deal with a whole raft of other issues. Macroeconomic management has to be broader; it has to be more imaginative than just that.
We see a reduced effectiveness of both fiscal and monetary policy because they are not being aligned as they should be. One example of this is when we look at the channel of monetary policy that is reducing interest rates and hoping that borrowers, therefore, might spend more or, similarly, is looking at the impact of the recent tax cuts. Of course, the extent to which people are likely to spend tax cuts is going to be affected by their confidence levels. It's going to be affected by their level of indebtedness. It's going to be affected by the way in which their wages growth—both current wages growth and their perception of future wages growth—affects their feeling of confidence. What we're seeing is that a lack of attention to these other economic variables is having a deleterious effect on confidence at the household level and at the individual level. We haven't seen the effectiveness of these cuts yet, but, in all likelihood, it is going to be reduced because sufficient attention is not being paid to these other economic issues.
The first broad macroeconomic point I want to make is that we are not aligning fiscal and monetary policy sufficiently. The second broad point I want to make, in an overarching sense, is that the government is talking a lot about uncertainty internationally. It is indeed creating some headwinds for the economy. But we are also seeing, at the moment, the impact of a number of longer-term trends. The weakness in productivity growth has been happening for a lot longer than uncertainty between China and the US or the recent Hong Kong riots or Brexit. What we're seeing are a number of structural issues in the economy which require structural responses. That is why, for example, the Reserve Bank has called for productivity reform. That is why the Reserve Bank has called for bringing forward infrastructure investment that will lead to enhanced productivity growth. I would argue that, yes, some of these international developments are creating additional headwinds and additional uncertainty, but many of the issues that I alluded to earlier as being of concern—low productivity growth; low wages growth over a long period of time—require structural, long-term responses, and we are not seeing that. We are seeing calls for that kind of action by a number of independent expert bodies: the Reserve Bank, Infrastructure Australia and others.
These are serious concerns. I see it reflected in Fraser. I see it reflected in the concerns that people raise with me. They're concerned about wages growth. They're concerned about key cost-of-living drivers in health care and in their power bills, and that's affecting their behaviour, which in turn, of course, affects the macroeconomy.
We would argue that there are a number of key responses that should be accelerated. One of them is infrastructure investment—greater infrastructure investment; infrastructure investment brought forward. Of course, it needs to be on projects with a high BCR, projects that are shovel-ready, projects that can only be brought forward in a fiscally sustainable way. A number of external independent expert parties are calling for this. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia has urged the government to focus on smaller infrastructure projects and maintenance to stimulate the economy out of its slowest growth in a decade, saying:
Smaller-scale, quick-to-market projects that are more easily delivered are a smart way of directly stimulating the economy.
The Reserve Bank has also made a number of comments on infrastructure. Governor Philip Lowe, after cutting interest rates to the lowest level that they've been since Federation, as I mentioned earlier, said that the country can't rely on monetary policy alone. He said:
We will achieve better outcomes for society as a whole if the various arms of public policy are all pointing in the same direction.
He added that infrastructure 'adds to demand in the economy' and, provided that the right projects are selected, 'it also adds to the economy's productive capacity'. That's something that we should be doing now. We should be bringing forward projects. The government talks often about its $100 billion, 10-year pipeline. Too little of that is currently in the forward estimates. Too little of that is being delivered where it's needed right now. And it is true to say that New South Wales and Victoria have a large number of large-scale projects underway right now, but, in other states, particularly in regional areas where the economy is floundering, we could be bringing smaller projects to bear. We could be bringing smaller projects into the market right now and in a way in which the construction sector could cope.
A second area where I think that the government could take more immediate action and where we're not seeing enough action in the current budget or in the current economic strategy is in relation to private sector investment and business investment. Recently, the Treasurer talked to the corporate sector through an address at, I think, the Business Council of Australia, basically jawboning the corporate sector to return fewer funds through dividends and to invest more. Not surprisingly, I would say, many prominent people in the business sector responded by saying, 'Well, these are decisions we make based on the individual circumstances of our company.' I think Mike Kane from Boral mentioned, in response: 'What we're doing is what's in the interests of Boral and its shareholders in the long run.' I could give you any number of other corporate executives and fund managers who said similar things. That's an understandable response. But we do need to see business investment increase in a way that will increase both employment and productivity growth.
But we need more than jawboning. And what the opposition suggests is that we need something like the Australian Labor Party's Australian Investment Guarantee, which would provide additional incentives for investment. It's not enough to implore businesses to invest more; we need to actually provide a different framework where it is actually in the interests of shareholders for them to do so. We need an actual policy in this space, not just imploring or asking businesses to invest more; it's clear that that won't work.
What we see in the current budget settings, in summary, is that there is an economy at the moment that, in aggregate terms, is growing. But it is growing by less than population growth. And within that context of aggregate growth, there are a number of long-term economic problems. Productivity growth is very weak. Wages growth is very weak. In response to that, what we are seeing is that monetary and fiscal policy are not aligned as they should be, and that is reducing the effectiveness of both. So we need a complete reworking of the economic agenda. We need more ambition. We need the government to put infrastructure investment, business investment incentives and wages growth on the agenda for immediate action in order to deal with these long-term structural problems.
I thank the member for Fraser for his comments; I think they are entirely relevant and interesting. I think the member for Fraser is referring to what Dr Lawrence Summers refers to as secular stagnation, which seems to have occurred since the global financial crisis of 2008. He talked about some of the structural changes that may have led to this. But I find it interesting that no-one on the Left ever talks about the fact that we have massively regulated our financial institutions—both deposit and lending—that credit creation is a major part of economic growth and that maybe this overregulation has in fact led to the stagnation that we are currently facing.
The Left also—or the Labor Party in this case—constantly refer to Philip Lowe's comments. The governor of the Reserve Bank could not have been clearer about this. He said there are two ways for us to deal with getting economic growth up. The first is through microeconomic reform lifting productivity. The second is through infrastructure spending. Of course, no-one on the left ever talks about structural reform; the first thing they always head to is spending more money. I ask them: where would you like the New South Wales government to spend more money? Where would you like the Victorian government to spend more money? Where exactly would you like the federal government to spend more money? We have a 10-year, $100 billion pipeline of infrastructure projects, yet the previous Labor government cut back on infrastructure spending. We saw real wage growth fall by 1.6 per cent under the Labor Party; we have seen it grow by 2.3 per cent under this government.
What does structural reform look like? Well, you could look at industrial relations. Ever since the Labor Party's changes in 2008 and 2009, according to them, real wages have stagnated. As we've discussed, that's not entirely true. But it is true to say that, under the Howard government, they were much higher than they are now under the Labor Party's Fair Work Act. But every time you talk about changing it so that it reflects the stated objectives of Julia Gillard, the union movement can't help itself, the Labor Party can't help itself, the Greens Party can't help itself—in fact, the Left can't help themselves. They are immediately up anyone suggesting any structural reform in this area, and claiming that what it is all about is trying to sack workers. Well, it's not. It's simply about bringing about what Julia Gillard said she wanted to bring about, which is certainty and fairness. The Fair Work Act has not delivered that.
And then you have savings and retirement incomes and investments. Every time you talk about any sense of reform in this area, you have the industry super funds—just the other week, Greg Combet said, 'If you want to talk about this, we will go you with a multimillion-dollar campaign.' He was threatening members of parliament to act not in the interests of our nation but in the interests of the industry super funds and make sure they weren't injured by the millions of dollars of members' money they will spend. Now, I ask this chamber: how is that spending money in the members' interests, when all that this parliament is trying to achieve is the creation of a system that better reflects and better secures people's retirement?
Then you have the employee share schemes. Employee share schemes were developed by the previous Howard government to allow workers to benefit from the growth of the companies in which they worked. It aligned incentives. It meant that you weren't just working for a wage; you were working for the benefit of the entire enterprise. So what did Wayne Swan do? He made sure that these things were cut to ribbons. He lowered the rate from $15,000 to $1,000. He made sure that you were taxed upfront, not at the end. And, just to make sure that no-one could possibly look at this, he made sure that the Income Tax Assessment Act was in conflict with the Corporations Law. So, unless you are a company with $100 million worth of turnover and listed on the Australian stock exchange, ASIC will not actually give you relief in order to set up one of these schemes. It was the idea and the outcome of Wayne Swan, a Labor Treasurer, to ensure that workers had no incentive and had no claim to any profit that any company made.
Of course, let us not forget about their changes to class actions. In 2006, there were two class actions involving securities per year. It is now eight times higher. It is funded by offshore litigation funders. It is costing millions of dollars. Director and officer liability insurance is up by 500 per cent and some companies are having trouble placing the insurance. And who gets all this money? The offshore funders; not the shareholders, not the companies. We are currently feasting like locusts upon our corporate sector, which does the employment, which does the innovation, which pays a lot of tax in order for us to fund social services. They're some of the structural reforms where the Labor Party could come together with us to agree and talk about a way forward. But they don't want to talk about that.
It is, despite all of that, an honour to return here today as the member for Mackellar. As this is my first re-election, I'm gratified to be reinstated by my community with an increase in my primary vote. As we know too well, elections are hard work. I stand here as a result of the ongoing support from my wife and daughter and a village of volunteers who gave of themselves and of their time for reasons that I wonder at nearly as much as I am grateful for. Early morning bus stops, phone canvassing, door-knocking, street stalls on Saturdays—the dedication of this team knew no bounds. I thank them all. But though much was taken, much abides. The Northern Beaches community expects much from this government and, rightly, from me too. Like all communities, we have our challenges and our success stories.
For those who struggle and those who live the belief that of those to whom much is given much is expected, I would like to speak to some of you here today. All of us in this place come from unique communities. Even so, despite the ferocity with which we debate, there is much more that unites us than divides us. We spend too much time here constructing walls between ourselves rather than crossing the many bridges that already exist. My community, like so many others, believes that the only way to create and maintain a fair country is through freedom, for no person knows the path to happiness of every person. But care and compassion comes not from the generosity of the state but from our families, friends, neighbours and those voluntary organisations we choose to join and build. History's surest pathway to serfdom is by replacing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Our most solemn duty in this place is to preserve and protect all that is right with our nation for all who live in it. Ultimately, let those who judge us, both now and in the future, do so on the basis not of the treasures that we possess but of the gifts that we share.
Liberals throughout the ages have fought for the right of all people—no matter who they are or where they come from—to live life to its fullest potential. Any society organised on liberal principles will never allow a person's destination in life to be determined by where they came from. History has shown that government-enforced equality ultimately and quickly leads to injustice. But we cannot possibly be a parliament of equality of opportunity if we do not make education our highest priority. Too many of our fellow Australians are condemned to live lives of quiet desperation—cycles of poverty that cannot be broken, even when the will exists to do so. The parliament has predetermined that the right answer for everyone is a university education, despite the fact that in other nations only around 20 per cent of people choose tertiary education, and yet these nations provide better outcomes for the economy, national wealth, business formation, productivity, employment and real wages. The United States is just one example. The vast majority of companies in their top 20 by capitalisation were started after 1975. By contrast Australia's youngest company in the top 20 was formed before the Great Depression in the 1930s.
We continue to ignore best practice and inconvenient truths throughout the education sector. We ignored the fact that decentralised education systems are the most successful, as we continued to do all we could to centralise our education system. We ignored the importance of the training of teachers and experimentation in curricula as the major drivers of education outcomes as we ploughed billions of dollars into a system that is producing decreasing outcomes in education. In Australia there is currently a negative correlation between spending and education. We pretend that giving parents freedom to choose is somehow a bad thing for their children, them and our nation. But most of all we pander to a conga line of stakeholders whose self-interest goes unchecked and unchallenged. Our children suffer, our liberal ideals are undermined, the cycle of poverty continues, our economy and national dynamism suffer and the quiet desperation of so many continues to go on, unheard and unheeded. No matter, though—the good and the great are satisfied. If we are to live up to our highest ideals then this parliament should advance the cause of a better and more responsive education system for all, not just for some.
The Northern Beaches is a place of great natural beauty, and we know the fight is on to ensure we preserve our environment for future generations. So who better than the children in our community to show us the way towards a better tomorrow. In June I received an email from Miss Amanda Lewis, a year 5 teacher of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, at St Kevin's Catholic primary school in Dee Why. Miss Lewis has been taking her years 5 and 6 students to Dee Why Beach where they observe local beachgoers and the environment. What they saw was all too common and, more importantly, avoidable—cigarette butts on the ground, rubbish in incorrect bins, a lack of recycling facilities, and the list went on. This is a world that our children will inherit, and we owe it to them to include them as equal voices in these important conversations. Small steps will amount to real change if we all make an effort.
Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, did you know that Mackellar has more surf life saving clubs than any electorate in the country? I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I did not until very recently when Surf Life Saving Australia's CEO, Adam Weir, asked me to co-chair the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving. Surf clubs embody the great Australian value of volunteerism. The sheer geographical expanse of Australia's landscape and our relatively small population mean we rely on volunteers—those incredible people in our communities who are committed to the service of others—to keep us safe. Our clubs not only patrol our beaches but give back to their own communities. Importantly, young people are a mainstay of these organisations, learning early in life the values of service and leadership. I witnessed this firsthand at the awards night of Whale Beach and Long Reef surf life saving clubs, of which I am a proud patron. Presidents Andrew Pearce of Whale Beach and Peter Kinsey of Long Reef deserve our great praise.
As we all know, some Australians are born in this country and some Australians were born elsewhere in the world, choosing to make a life here as citizens. It is a frequent honour and joy to attend citizenship ceremonies for those who have chosen the Northern Beaches as their home. I'm often moved when I hear the personal stories behind the individuals who make this decision. While my story is special to me, it is not unique. Modern Australia was built by migrants like my grandparents. I'm sure that those I welcome into our community at these ceremonies will make a positive contribution, like my father and his parents before him did.
While it is a great privilege to call the Northern Beaches home, our community is not without its problems. Cottage Point is a small community of just over 100 residents on the western edge of Mackellar. This tight-knit community houses an RFS brigade, marine rescue and multiple businesses. They are located just 45 minutes from the Sydney CBD, yet they are without mobile reception. It's not an issue of convenience; it's an issue of safety. I have fought for this essential service since 2016 and I again call on Telstra to make use of the government's Mobile Black Spot Program, which I fought to make Cottage Point a part of. A phone tower must be built to provide the security of reliable phone reception.
The 46th Parliament is in its early days. However, I look forward to the three years ahead as a time of action, positive change and progress, both here and in my electorate on the Northern Beaches. I am proud to share in the responsibility that we have to our nation and our constituents and I urge all of us not to let them down.
The appropriation bills before the House set out the spending priorities of this tired, third-term Morrison government. In my response today I would like to focus on cybersecurity, given my new role as the shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity and communications. Cybersecurity incidents cost Australian businesses up to $29 billion per year. In 2018, cybercrime affected almost one in three Australian adults. Our critical infrastructure—power stations, transport systems, industrial plants—is currently vulnerable to cyber-enabled attacks. Last week, the outgoing ASIO general director, Duncan Lewis, identified cybersecurity as one of the biggest threats to Australian national security. Strong cybersecurity is crucial to Australia's future, to our economy, to our national security and to our very democracy.
Last week, the Morrison government announced it will develop a new Australian cybersecurity strategy. Since the Turnbull-era strategy will reach the end of its life in 2020, this is a welcome announcement, particularly as it took this government 17 months to produce the last strategy. The 2016 cybersecurity strategy was released by the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, with great fanfare and hundreds of millions of dollars of funding. Three and a half years later the new minister responsible for cybersecurity, the Minister for Home Affairs, now tells us that the Morrison government has made 'strong progress towards the strategy's many goals'. You'll just have to take their word for it, though.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18 : 07 to 18 : 21
As I was saying, 3½ years after the announcement of the 2016 Cyber Security Strategy, the home affairs minister told Australia that the government has made 'strong progress' towards the strategy's goals, but you'll just have to take his word for it. There's no data or evidence to back up any of the government's claims and no metrics with which we could assess the performance of the government against the strategy's goals. None of the 2016 Cyber Security Strategy's five action plans specified any metrics or outcomes against which you could actually measure success. Where the government did make specific commitments, they went down a memory hole. In the government's A call for views, they describe it as having an 'updated approach'.
There are a few examples. The 2016 strategy promised a minister assisting the Prime Minister on cybersecurity, but, when the member for Cook deposed Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister, that position disappeared as well. The 2016 strategy promised annual updates reporting on implementation and progress of the report. The first annual update was published in 2017, but it wasn't until last Friday when A call for views on the new strategy, passed last week, included an appendix A, which included a perfunctory dot point update on the status of the strategy. The 2016 strategy promised annual cybersecurity leaders meetings, CEO meetings and meetings with leaders in the Public Service. The then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, did meet with public and private sector leaders in 2017, but no meetings have been held since. The 2016 strategy promised a layered approach to cyber-threat information sharing, including through a dedicated online portal. Nearly four years later, the government describes the progress made towards this particular outcome in this way:
An interim public-private communications platform has been established while a long term solution is created.
That's very fancy bureaucratic speak for saying that the government has established a slack channel that public sector and private sector companies are currently on. Intel sharing more broadly across Australian public and private sectors is patchy at best. As for sharing threats on cyber.gov.au, the government didn't publish any threat advice at all on that site for 10 months, between September 2018 and June 2019.
If you ask independent third parties about Australia's progress on cybersecurity during the life of the first Cyber Security Strategy, they will say that Australia may even have gone backwards. Australia's commitment to cybersecurity has fallen according to the International Telecommunication Union's Global Cybersecurity Index. In 2014, Australia was ranked third in the world under this index. By 2018, three years into the Turnbull strategy, we had fallen all the way to 11th in the world. Of the 17 Commonwealth entities and agencies audited by the ANAO for their cyber-resilience—one of the objectives of the 2016 Cyber Security Strategy—only six were found to be adequately cyber-resilient—a very poor outcome indeed. Australia's also ranked in the top five nations around the world for data breaches by population. It's a real issue.
The major failing in Australian cybersecurity policy over the life of the current strategy has been an absence of political leadership and accountability within the federal government. The 2016 strategy was politically orphaned when Malcolm Turnbull was deposed and the Prime Minister abolished the dedicated minister from his cabinet. Rather than being a day-to-day policy focus for a minister focused on their job, cybersecurity was reduced to just another trophy on the wall of the Minister for Home Affairs, just another conquest in his bureaucratic empire building. As a result, the initiatives announced in the 2016 strategy were simply forgotten. Cybersecurity is more than just a technical problem.
One issue that was largely absent from the 2016 strategy, and from the consultation document for the development of a new strategy, was the potential for the use of the internet to interfere in our democracy. In the early days of the internet, democratic nations were optimistic about the internet's democratising effects and the potential for those democratising effects on authoritarian regimes. But now we see that, in the event, authoritarian regimes have been able to use the internet to successfully control what their citizens can see on the web. In contrast, it is open societies, democracies like Australia, who are most vulnerable to the evolution of the internet.
Duncan Lewis warned that Australia is a 'rich target' for state-sponsored cyberattacks aimed at spreading false information, interfering with political processes and undermining our democratic institutions. Indeed, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, in a recent report, has found that 20 countries have experienced cyberenabled foreign interference in their electoral and democratic processes since 2016.
In February this year the Prime Minister confirmed that a sophisticated foreign-state actor had targeted the Liberal, Labor and National Party head offices—our party organisations—as well as the IT systems supporting Parliament House. Intelligence officials are reported to believe that a foreign actor was responsible for the ANU data breach in June this year where the records of many, many thousands of students and staff, spanning 19 years, were illegally accessed.
Beyond breaching systems, foreign entities have employed a variety of tactics to influence public discourse and undermine trust in elections and democracies. Influence operations work by finding cracks in the fabric of society and exploiting them to weaken trust in our democratic institutions. This is why cybersecurity is not simply a technological issue.
Our best defence against these kinds of information operations isn't a new technology; it's our democratic institutions; it's the health of our institutions. The more robust our democratic institutions, the more they're able to immunise us, to protect us, from these information operations from foreign adversaries. Unfortunately, the Australian public's mistrust in our democratic institutions today leaves them more vulnerable to the types of foreign influence operations that we are seeing around the world. That's why I regard it as an important part of my portfolio responsibilities to push for ways to strengthen the health of our democratic institutions, to increase the public's trust in our democratic institutions, so that these institutions will be resilient and help us protect ourselves from this foreign interference.
There are many things that we need to do to start to improve the health of the democratic institutions in our country, but here are three just to start. Experts at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute cyberpolicy centre recommend a key measure for protecting Australian democracy is a healthy and robust media environment. Unfortunately, the Morrison government is actively undermining public confidence in our media. The coalition's misplaced priorities were seen earlier this year when the Australian Federal Police raided Annika Smethurst, of News Corp, and the ABC. These raids further eroded public confidence, the Australian public's trust, in our fourth estate. The Chief Executive of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, Paul Murphy, put it perfectly when he said:
It's yet another example of the culture that's been created in this country of an absolute disregard for the role of journalists in an open liberal democracy …
The second thing we need to do is to restore trust in our institutions through the establishment of a national integrity commission. Trust that our democratic institutions are acting in the interests of the Australian public, not in the personal interests of individuals within a system, is falling in Australia. Currently, only 41 per cent of Australians express trust in our democracy, only 31 per cent of Australians express trust in our federal government and only 16 per cent of Australians express trust in our political parties. We need a national integrity commission to tackle perceptions of corruption and to restore public trust in our democratic institutions. Less than 12 months ago the coalition agreed with this, or at least they said in the lead-up to the election that they agreed.
Order! It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
My grievance tonight is about the many barriers faced by many of my constituents in gaining meaningful employment. I especially want to focus on those constituents with Iraqi and Syrian backgrounds who have settled in Calwell on the special humanitarian visa. This is a very highly skilled cohort with extensive work experience in their professional fields. I often will meet with my refugee communities in order to get an understanding of how they are settling in my electorate. We often talk about their needs and aspirations. We have lots of discussions about how they are making adjustments to their new life here in Australia and their new community, how they are going with the English language program that many of them are enrolled in and, of course, almost always how they're going with getting a job.
Outside of their concern for their children and their children's schooling the single issue for most of my constituents is employment. I can say to this chamber that a great number of them continue to experience huge difficulties in getting a proper job, as they say to me—an appropriate job, one that's relevant to their education, training and experience. They face incredible challenges in getting a job. I'm concerned that we have a cohort of people, certainly in my electorate, who are trained and qualified. We here have not found a way to accommodate this training and these qualifications. We don't recognise them. Therefore, it is creating a huge problem for my constituents.
As part of the humanitarian settlement program my constituents have access to jobactive network providers. The website of the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business states that the jobactive provider service connects jobseekers with employers and is delivered by a network of jobactive providers in over 1,700 locations across Australia. About 20 of those jobactive network providers are located in my electorate. They are located in suburbs from Craigieburn to Broadmeadows and across to Tullamarine. Over time I have visited these jobactive network providers and talked about the nature of their service delivery and the issues they face in placing people in work. Their frustration doesn't equal the frustration that is felt by the jobseekers who say to me that they feel that, far from anything, the jobactive network providers are not connecting them with real, meaningful jobs. This is largely because this refugee cohort has to constantly deal with the pushback from many prospective employers. They are not qualified for a particular job even though they have incredible qualifications. It's a concern for me.
When I do speak to my constituents they say that they often feel forced to accept roles or jobs that are inadequate—they're certainly underemployed. Often they are pressured to accept these jobs because if they don't tick the boxes they may have their benefits cut, which would be a real problem for them. It's not that they don't want to work. I think this group of people's major frustration is that they feel they are simply not able to make the sort of contribution that they want to make in the areas that they are qualified for and educated in. For many of them it's—well, humiliation is an understatement, but they will often tell me that they feel humiliated by this rejection of their qualifications.
I want to tell some of their stories, and they were very happy for me to do that, so I'm going to do that, because it's very important to develop a picture or profile of the sorts of people that we could, as a community, benefit from if we could find a way to accommodate them. Luma is a constituent from Roxburgh Park. She is an electrical and communications engineer. Prior to coming to Australia, she had 21 years of work experience as an engineer in Iraq. She had a successful career until, of course, it was cut short and she was forced to flee Iraq as a refugee and come and live in Australia. When Luma attended one of her first interviews with her jobactive network provider she was told by her case manager that she would never ever find a job in her field. Needless to say, that came as a bit of a shock to her. Instead, she was given a job that she could go to, and it was a job as a cleaner. Although it was necessary to work, she felt that she could make a bigger and better contribution. She definitely wanted to continue exercising the skills and qualifications that, for the last 21 years, she had used in Iraq. Luma said to me, 'I actually don't understand why I'm not matched up with jobs that match my qualifications.'
Recently, I held a forum in my electorate. I was surprised to see some 400 people attend that forum. All of them were recently arrived refugees; some had been here for a period of more than three years. They had all come here under the Humanitarian Settlement Program. All of them felt that they had not been given adequate opportunity to use their skills.
I suggest we look at an initiative that is being led by the Victorian government, which recognises this gap and this potential. In recognition that we're about to outlay on a large infrastructure program and of the skills shortages associated with that, the state government has identified the need for trained and qualified engineers. They've created an engineering pathway industry cadetship, which is a program that will exclusively recruit engineers from refugee or asylum-seeker backgrounds by fast-tracking and removing the barriers that are preventing them from being employed in those fields. It will allow qualified engineers from diverse and difficult backgrounds to start their careers by working on these major transport infrastructure programs in Victoria. This program will partner with AMEP, Melbourne Polytechnic and the Kangan Institute, and it will be in collaboration with La Trobe University and their partner Engineers Australia. They recently held a focus group in my electorate where they introduced the pathways to engineering initiatives.
I want to thank Carole Pondevie-Lay, the community liaison and engagement manager at Melbourne Polytechnic, for spearheading this initiative. Through the delivery of the AMEP program at the Melbourne Polytechnic, they realised they have a lot of refugees skilled in engineering. I'm very interested to see how this program—this fast-tracking initiative—succeeds in fast-tracking pathways for people who have got this sort of experience and these qualifications by matching them up with jobs that are identified as a skills shortage.
So we're all very excited about this. Engineers Australia supports Australia's migration policy by allowing engineering qualifications to be recognised Australia-wide. With this initiative, we will see La Trobe University create a one-year fast-track for skilled migrants into a workforce familiarisation training program. This will be of benefit to everyone. I suggest that, when we are reviewing some of the way the Job Network providers are operating, we consider in a more creative way how we can fast-track some of our skills in a way that allows people to work in meaningful jobs.
Last month, I had the privilege of taking part in an ADF Parliamentary Program trip to the Middle East region—sometimes referred to as the MER. I had previously travelled to Afghanistan in 2017, so this time I knew what to expect. Yet I have to say that, despite that, this trip far exceeded my expectations. I was joined by my parliamentary Labor colleagues Senator Kimberly Kitching and the member for Oxley. Both were excellent travelling companions and, although we had a number of somewhat spirited differences of opinion on policy, they were always very well natured. As always on these ADF Parliamentary Program trips, partisan politics gave way to the importance of Team Australia. This trip was, once again, impeccably planned by the ADF and the program coordinator, Lieutenant Colonel Andy Martin. The resourcefulness of our ADF escort officers was quickly put to the test before we departed Australia, when yours truly left one of my required visa documents at home. In a sign of things to come, Major Michelle Turpie, whose parents live in my electorate, and Lieutenant Commander Andrew Tait snapped into action and resolved the issue. It was to be just the first of several things that I left behind during the trip. In every case, Michelle and Andrew had it all sorted quickly—without fuss and with my battered pride intact. Truth be known, they probably wondered how I managed to tie my shoelaces in the morning!
ADF Parliamentary Program trips to the MER differ markedly from most parliamentary trips with ADF personnel. With the ADF Parliamentary Program, parliamentarians are afforded no luxuries, no special treatment: we eat, sleep, bathe and train alongside ADF personnel. It is an immersive experience providing us with the most realistic opportunity to live the life of an ADF member for a day or possibly 10. It is a remarkable chance few civilians are afforded to get a better insight into the lives of the men and women that we politicians send into harm's way. Every person who travels into the MER area of operations with the ADF must undergo a form of severe ritual punishment designed to test one's emotional, physical and intellectual resolve—under the covert ruse of a 'military briefing'. Based on, no doubt, the habitual beatings of Roman military discipline, in 2019 this practice has morphed into what is known to all modern ADF service men and women as 'death by PowerPoint'. It could certainly be used by the ADF as a potent weapon against any future enemies—though I'm concerned that the practice would be outlawed under the Hague conventions!
All jokes aside, upon arrival the first thing that becomes immediately self-evident—after the 50-degree heat—is the professionalism of our ADF personnel. From private to commander, each and every interaction I had left me with an abiding sense of pride. All Australians should rightly feel proud of the tremendous work being undertaken by our ADF members in the Middle East. Whether it is as part of Operation Okra in Iraq, Operation Highroad in Afghanistan or Operation Manitou on the east coast of Africa, the ADF punches well above its weight. Not only do ADF members enjoy a high degree of respect among their coalition colleagues but, importantly, they have earned the respect of their host nation militaries in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
After our in-country briefings, we had the pleasure of making the trip to Iraq on the flight deck of an RAAF C-130J. We met Flight Lieutenant Jonathan Lee and Flying Officer Cameron Zofrea. Both these young men fly and navigate their aircraft through what are very busy aircraft traffic lanes at the best of times while contending with the risks of flying in and around contested territories. Flying Officer Zofrea told us a story about his RAAF career, which, with his permission, I want to share with the Australian people. It demonstrates the resourcefulness, tenacity and never-say-die attitude of the modern ADF member, even in the face of adversity.
Flying Officer Zofrea had not been flying C-130s for very long. Only a few short weeks before he'd been flying classic F-18 Hornets, and he was preparing to graduate. After training for some five years and poised to fulfil what was no doubt his life's ambition of becoming a fast-jet pilot, in his final week of training Flying Officer Zofrea was told that he would not be graduating. Expecting within days to go to RAAF Base Tindal, he'd sold his car, given up his unit and signed a lease on a property in the Northern Territory. But it was not meant to be. After spending around $23 million on his training, the RAAF reached the conclusion that he had not met the exacting standards required. Now, many of us would have thrown in the towel, but not Flying Officer Zofrea. In a mark of the man that he is, whilst no doubt bitterly disappointed, he reinvented himself and retrained on the C-130. Flying C-130s in war-like operations is not for the faint-hearted, but, as any pilot will tell you, it's not flying fast jets. So this young man deserves all the kudos and respect that we as a nation can muster. Flying Officer Zofrea will be eligible to reapply to train on fast jets in three years, and if he still has that need for speed, if I can use that term, I would urge him to never give up on that dream.
Whilst in Iraq, we had the privilege of undertaking urban warfare training with Australian Army infantry soldiers from Enoggera. Using what's called airsoft weaponry, rather than live ammunition, we learned about clearing buildings, 'looking for work' and protecting our mates. We searched countless buildings looking for two simulated armed intruders. It was hot, incredibly demanding work, both physically and mentally. We knew that behind each closed door could be a mock insurgent armed with one of these airsoft weapons. Now, for anyone who has ever pulled up carpet before, let me tell you that whoever gave the term 'airsoft' to this ammunition was probably related to the person who invented 'smooth edge'. I am still sporting the bruises some three weeks later! As a soldier it appears I make a good politician, and the men who trained us will no doubt be dining out on our exploits for many days to come. However, what we lacked in skills and experience we made up for with our enthusiasm and the battle cunning of Senator Kitching, who clearly was not troubled by our rules of engagement, or by the simulated death of her enemy combatant, as she continued to empty her magazine into the poor bloke lying on the ground!
Finally, I want to single out another ADF member, Lieutenant Commander Errika Meades, who I saw unexpectedly as I boarded the MASS charter flight in Sydney. My friend Errika is completing a seven-month deployment to the MER but in calmer times serves on my Fisher Defence Industry Initiative Committee and is helping me drive defence industry on the Sunshine Coast. Errika, I want to say thank you for your passion for all things defence. Please stay safe. Enjoy your time in the Middle East and thank you for your service. Indeed, to all members of the ADF, we say: thank you for your service. Your professionalism and your skills are a credit to you, your mates and our country, and it was my privilege to be able to spend even just a few short days with you.
I want to thank the ADF in general, and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, whose responsibility it is to organise the ADF Parliamentary Program. The program provides a very rare insight. I have one of the largest veteran populations in Australia in my electorate. I've never served in uniform. This gives me a very real, albeit very small, snapshot of the life of an ADF member. I believe it gives me an incredible window to be able to serve my constituents in the best way that I can. Thank you to all those involved. Thank you to all those who made us feel welcome as part of the ADF Parliamentary Program.
It's a cliche to say that Australia is at a crossroads, and yet at no other time during Australia's peacetime history has our country faced so many escalating challenges and left so many of those challenges unmet. The reality is that all great nations are perpetually at a crossroads. We always have a choice about the future we want for our country and how we contribute to the future of our globe.
We know that the most important national challenge facing Australia is climate change, because of its increasing and projected impacts upon national security, economic security, food security, public health and our natural environment. The policy solution to climate change has been clear for decades. In order to incentivise changes in behaviour and the way we structure our economic production at both the corporate and household level, we need price signals that include the real cost to society of the pollution that induces climate change. In simple terms, this means we need an emissions reduction scheme or an emissions intensity scheme, and there is a broad expert consensus on this approach. Former Prime Minister John Howard accepted this expert advice, as did Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull and my good friend Nick Xenophon, when he was a senator in this place. However, what subsequent governments have all struggled to master is the politics. The failure of Australia to adopt a meaningful and durable energy and climate change policy is the essential failure of Australian politics of our age.
In the climate change space, it is not only the top-tier issue of energy policy on which we have repeatedly failed; it is also Australia's vehicle emissions standards. We are the worst in the OECD by a wide margin—worse than Europe, worse than everywhere. And things are just getting worse. CO2 emissions from new Australian passenger vehicles are increasing at an accelerating rate. The public health outcomes of our inaction are diabolical. While tight estimates are difficult to formulate, traffic pollution is estimated to cause approximately 3,000 deaths a year, and so we can reasonably conclude that improved standards would have the potential to save at least hundreds of lives. The government last conducted in-service vehicle emissions testing in 2009, so we do not even have an up-to-date or detailed understanding of Australia's vehicle emissions profile and how we should adapt international standards to Australian conditions. The Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions was established in October 2015 and has consulted broadly but has yet to implement anything of substance. The horrible irony of all of this is that improving vehicle efficiency standards would not only lead to better environmental outcomes and better public health outcomes; it would save households, businesses and the government money, because having efficient fuel means you buy less of it.
Demographic change is a multidimensional challenge facing Australia, and we continue to grapple with it. First, I will talk about population growth. Australia is predicted to have a population of 41 million by 2060 and has some of the fastest-growing cities in the OECD. We know all too well that successive governments at both state and federal levels have struggled to sufficiently progress the infrastructure needed to address the bottlenecks. Interest rates—the cost of money—are the lowest and cheapest faced by any Australian government since Federation, and yet the federal government has been delaying infrastructure project spending in order to preserve the political benefits of a budget surplus.
I fully recognise the importance of balancing the books over the medium and long term. However, when determining major public investment decisions, the economic rather than the political cost-benefit analysis should predominate. Now is the time to invest in major nation-building infrastructure. Goodness knows, we need much more of it, certainly in my electorate of Mayo. As our population grows, so does the proportion of older Australians. Between 2011 and 2031, the number of people in Australia aged 65 years and over will increase by almost 85 per cent, from 3.1 million to 5.7 million. The home-care package system is facing dire shortages in government funding, and either more funds or new models of care are needed to address this deepening community need.
If we're going to meet the challenges of our ageing demographic, we also must take action today to ensure that we have the workforce we need to meet the challenges of our ageing demographic. The aged-care workforce is estimated at 366,000 people, but the Productivity Commission estimates that by 2050 we will require a workforce of almost one million people to provide direct care to people who are ageing. And yet the HESTA survey of 2017 showed that, in a sample of an estimated 500 aged-care workers, only 60 per cent intended to stay in their current job for at least five years, and an estimated 23 per cent of aged-care workers intended to leave for jobs outside of the aged-care sector or resign within five years. We need the government to have a clear policy framework for the recruitment and retention of skilled aged-care workers.
More broadly, the best way to build the social support system of tomorrow to meet the needs of our elderly, disabled and disadvantaged Australians is to provide wide and inclusive economic opportunities to more Australians. The tax and transfer system can and should smooth off the worst edges of Australian social and economic inequality, in tandem with significant additional public investment in areas that reduce inequality, by providing more opportunities for Australians who are searching for but cannot secure them. Specifically, this means additional investment in education, teacher training, vocational education, preventative health care and physical and digital public infrastructure, all with a particular focus on those disadvantaged outer metropolitan and regional areas far from the CBDs of our capital cities.
Related to the demographic challenge is that old chestnut: housing affordability. We know this all too well. Younger Australians are increasingly unable to afford their own homes in major cities without family assistance, which makes the future financial security of young Australians increasingly determined on the lottery of birth, and this should not be the case. We all lose when this is the case. Housing developers will argue that increased housing supply is the only answer, but I believe it is only part of the answer. We also need to look more broadly and ensure that mum-and-dad investors in particular have an opportunity to participate in investing in social housing. Some limited concessions on property investment may be appropriate, but we need to substantially level the playing field.
Competitive policy is another major area where reform has been stalled. Greater market competition leads to better prices and products for both Australian businesses and consumers and drives innovation, productivity and economic growth. However, in Australia, we have too many markets dominated by a limited number of companies to the direct detriment of consumers and businesses and our long-term economic potential. Unfortunately, unlike comparable jurisdictions, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission does not have divestiture powers. This means it has no means by which to break up companies that have accumulated an overconcentration of market power that is against the public interest. No-one more than the Australian farmer feels the brunt of not having divestiture powers here in Australia.
Telecommunications presents another persistent challenge that subsequent governments are struggling to address, with ongoing inequity in the access to telecommunications experienced by Australians living in regional, rural and remote areas compared to urban counterparts. The 2018 Australian digital inclusion index revealed substantial differences between rural and urban areas across access, affordability and digital ability. Every Australian, irrespective of where they live or work, should have access to quality, reliable and affordable voice and data services with customer support guarantees. In order to ensure that we have regional, remote and rural Australia in the best position to retain people for the long term, the government needs to establish a universal service obligation. It needs to ensure NBN is fully resourced to maintain an upgrade to the NBN satellite, and it needs to make sure that we create a targeted concessional broadband to support low-income residents, particularly low-income residents in regional, rural and remote Australia.
I've covered a lot of issues today. This is about creating the best Australia for the future, because the work we do in this place today must always be about making a better Australia for tomorrow.
I'd like to share with you tonight some disturbing facts. In Australia, on average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner. In 2018, 69 women and children were killed as a result of domestic violence. One in six Australian women have been subjected to physical or sexual violence by a current or previous partner since the age of 15. That is 1.6 million women. One in four women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or previous partner. These are the statistics staring us in the face every day when we talk about domestic and family violence. But there are still so many untold stories. So many women and children are currently suffering and have suffered violence and abuse at the hands of someone whom they loved and who should have loved them back—who should have protected them, not harmed them.
No-one deserves to be abused. No-one deserves to have to deal with the pain, the uncertainty, the emotional and psychological trauma and the long-term effects of domestic violence. No woman or child should ever be given a reason to fear for their life. Domestic and family violence tears lives apart. Every day we see the terrible media reports about women and children who have been killed or hurt at the hands of someone else. Our local police departments deal with multiple calls about domestic and family violence every day. Families are forced to watch as their daughter, sister, mother, grandmother or friend suffers because their partner or former partner is abusing them.
I know this because one of my daughters has suffered in a violent relationship. I can remember when my son and I made the four-hour drive to pick her up in the middle of the night because her partner had harmed her physically. I can remember the anger and the feeling of helplessness as we drove back that same night and the confusion and the hurt in her voice, but also the confusion I had as I realised during the conversation the love that she still had for this man.
Domestic abuse affects not only families and friends. I have also had a staff member who was a victim of domestic violence. I can remember the awful sobbing noise as I passed the door of the ladies toilet. This was 12 months after the abuse had ended, but the memory and pain still remained and a trigger had reignited that trauma. It's one thing to hear about these stories, but to hear it for yourself is another thing altogether.
Domestic and family violence can take many forms, whether it's verbal abuse, emotional abuse, social abuse, financial abuse, physical abuse or even stalking. But any form of abuse is never okay. So, to the victims of domestic and family violence, I want to say: it is not your fault and it is never your fault. I knew that this was a problem, but since being elected I've been overwhelmed by the number of organisations that are out there to deal with this problem, which is more evidence of how big a problem it is. I have personally met with eight different organisations in my electorate so far; I've counted and there about another 14 to go before I cover them all. This is an epidemic.
But tonight I want to talk about an organisation that has gone above and beyond when it comes to helping and supporting women who have gone through domestic and family violence. In Longman electorate we have an organisation called Hairdressers with Hearts, who are supporting those facing family and domestic violence, including elder abuse, by harnessing the safe and trusted environment of a hairdressing salon and a barber shop to provide information and support for clients to access the right services and the right advice at the right time. You probably wouldn't have thought that a hairdressing salon would be that place. They do this by utilising the unique advantage of being licensed to touch hair, which allows a close and trusted relationship to develop between a hairdresser or barber and the client. Because of the bond that is created, a hairdresser or barber is often confided in by clients—kind of like the old bartender. It makes sense that this environment produces trust, as often these appointments go for hours and the client is relaxed as they are being pampered. I can testify to this firsthand as I have on occasion gone to collect my wife from a hairdressing appointment, and of course it was running late, and I have heard some of the conversations that my wife has had with her hairdresser. I'm sure the hairdresser knows more about me than I know about myself, which is scary.
Hairdressers with Hearts takes a proactive approach by providing appropriate training and the necessary resources to assist victims who confide in their hairdresser or barber about their current situation. This wonderful organisation, headed up by two ladies, Sonia Colvin and Adrienne Logan, who had no more than a vision and a desire to help others, is fast blossoming into a force to be reckoned with. Sonia has personally helped 131 people in her single salon at Bribie Island. If the 55,000 hairdressers and barbers around Australia helped the same number of people, that would be 7,205,000 people helped—a big dream indeed.
But it is their desire and mine to go a step further. We would like to see another subject added to the curriculum of the certificate III in hairdressing, or hairdressing apprenticeship, for want of a better term. The subject would be along the same lines as one called No More Silence, which was first introduced in Illinois in the United States. In essence, it would give the hairdresser or barber training to identify those who potentially are suffering abuse. Secondly, it would give them the skill set to put these victims in touch with the appropriate organisation that best suited their individual needs. In the US, 16 states currently have this in their hairdressing apprenticeships and we'd like to see it rolled out here in Australia.
To give a little bit of history about Hairdressers with Hearts, it started under the window of a 'safe room' at a Caboolture courthouse, in 2012, with a simple conversation between Sonia Colvin, who was a hairdresser, and a domestic violence worker. It was a dream, a dream of being able to do something to harness the power of hairdressing salons. Hairdressers and barbers are at the front line of the community, reaching people at the grassroots level and having intimate conversations with clients who walk through the door on a regular basis. Their aim with Hairdressers with Hearts is to harness the intimate and trusting relationship between Australia's 55,000 hairdressers and their clients. They believe that by empowering hairdressers with the correct resources and appropriate training they'll be doing their part to make a difference in the lives of many Australians. The number and location of domestic and family violence and elder abuse units across Australia is not sufficient to meet the needs of victims in rural areas. However, most small rural communities have a hairdresser and/or a barber who could safely make resources available for these victims.
They have a great vision, which is to provide every Australian hairdresser and barber with the Hairdressers with Hearts 'no more silence' training so that they are empowered to help clients by providing appropriate resources. In doing so, they will reach the most vulnerable in the community, who may have no idea where to turn. Hairdressers with Hearts has the ability to cross cultural and socioeconomic barriers, because hairdressers are a part of all communities.
Mobile hairdressers are regularly entering the homes of the elderly and the disabled and also nursing homes, reaching some of the most vulnerable and at-risk in our community. The second part of their vision concerns elder abuse. As recently as five years ago my father-in-law, who was suffering from dementia, was subject to a type of abuse that is not often talked about, which is economic and social abuse. He had been reached by a telemarketing company and we took a phone call to say that he was in debt for the sum of around $600 because he hadn't been paying for a teddy bear that he had apparently signed up for six months previously. How they got the number of a man in a dementia clinic I'll never know.
It's so important that we continue to give those who have been through violent situations the help and support that they need to get back on their feet and the confidence to believe in themselves again. This additional subject will achieve just that outcome, because everyone deserves to live in a world without violence. Thank you.
We have just passed an anniversary for those of us first elected in 2013. We have just ticked over six years in the parliament. For me, that's six years of representing the community that I was born in, the community I raised my family in, the community that I worked in as an educator for some 25 of my 27 years in the education sector and a community that I have always loved. But it's also a community that is growing at a rapid rate, and with that comes new and emerging arrivals into our community.
Five years ago, 50 per cent of the people who call Wyndham home now did not live there. The rate of growth is enormous. With that comes certain challenges as well as lots and lots of opportunities. I stand here in this chamber representing that opportunity. I'm a kid who grew up in Werribee, a kid fortunate enough to have had the capacity to get through year 12 and go off to university to become a professional—to become a teacher—and a kid fortunate enough to live in a country where things were there for me to connect with that, ultimately, led me to this place to be the representative of that community. It's extraordinary.
Tonight, I want to recommit to my community that I will continue to be the strong voice that my community needs so desperately, to call the government to account and to help shape policies that a Labor government could implement that would make their lives easier and that would make our community more prosperous. To do that, I need to share a little about the community.
We had a redistribution in Victoria, so the boundaries shifted at the 2019 election. It's with sadness that I no longer represent a part that the previous boundaries gave me to represent, which was Laverton, where I spent many, many years teaching in that community. When boundaries shifted, half of Point Cook went to Gellibrand, as well as Laverton and parts of Seabrook. I'm tinged with sadness to say goodbye to some of those communities that I've come to known over the last six years as their member of parliament. But I want to ensure that people understand that Tim Watts, the member for Gellibrand, is a fabulous representative. The city of Wyndham has reached a new milestone. It now has two representatives in the federal parliament rather than one, which, of course, is always a good thing. Two voices, two strong members here—two strong Labor members—prepared to fight for our community.
I want to give people a bit of a snapshot about what that community is. There are 100 babies born a week to mothers who live in the city of Wyndham. At the heart of Wyndham is the old country suburb of Werribee, where I grew up. I first remember being conscious of the population sign when it said 13,000. In that city it's now a population of over 270,000. The rate of growth has been incredible, dramatic and sustained over many years now.
There are other things about our community. There are 17,000 registered businesses and that's up 32 per cent from 2016. So more and more people are opening small businesses or registering as a small business. We had the highest number of dwelling approvals in Victoria between July 2018 and 2019. The population of Wyndham would fill 2.7 MCGs and the projections are that it will fill almost five MCGs by 2041. The birth rate means that there are 4½ primary school classes born each week. Of every three people you meet in Wyndham one has probably moved here in the past five years. Just under 99 per cent of net migration into our community is from people born overseas. It's a young community. Millennials and younger generations dominate the Wyndham population. Fifty-eight per cent of residents are below 35 years of age. Fortunately, I spent many years in secondary schools and worked with young people. So it doesn't matter how old I get; I feel I can still connect to the people I represent.
The Wyndham Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is the largest in all of Greater Melbourne. You can see the opportunities and the challenges—the opportunities for us to learn about First Australians and their history. Wyndham City Council, our local government, has been doing some fabulous work in that area. If you call 100 random Wyndham residents, 53 of them will speak a language other than English. Together with the cities of Casey and Hume, Wyndham is home to the largest family households in all of Greater Melbourne. More than half of Wyndham households are families with children. The majority of these households have children under 15 years of age. So you can see that the challenges are real.
We currently have 52 schools inside the boundaries of the electorate of Lalor and the demand for new schools continues to grow. One of the parts of the debate that is missing, even locally, is that it's always about: where's the next new school? It's always about the provision of new schools and not often enough about the maintenance of our established schools. Also, it's not often enough about the quality of the education in those schools. As someone who worked in education for so long, I know the challenges that our principals and their teams face when a school opens its doors for prep to year 2 with 200 children and the next year it has 800 children in prep to year 6. There are recruitment challenges and training challenges. There are the challenges of recruitment of experienced staff to come to the new schools. There's an opportunity for the training of teachers in our local schools that very few communities have. But, by the same token, we need leaders in our schools and we need to know that they've been tried and tested—that they can build a school culture and that they can have a focus on teaching and learning rather than extraneous things, to ensure that we're building quality schools. Our community demands that quality education.
I think one of the challenges we face needs to be put on the record. We talked about citizenship last night. Everyone assumes that the world will stay the same: migrants will arrive in Australia and they will dig in; they'll save for a decade or 20 years before they go home on a big trip. The world has changed. The globe is much smaller, not geographically but emotionally. In terms of travel, it's certainly much smaller. Our new communities want a quality education for their children. That is our biggest challenge once we are mobile and living in this global world. I have conversations with people in my electorate who may have just become citizens. They'll go through their family tree and they'll talk about their brother living in Singapore, their mother living in Ireland and their cousins living in the UK. A young girl who works for me recently took eight months to do a world tour. She didn't have to pay for accommodation in any country because she comes from a refugee family that is all over the world. Her travel diary was extraordinary. It brought home to me that, if we don't provide what these families are looking for in our country, they have other options. So the world has changed. Most of our families who came from overseas, those who came in through skilled migration, returned home within two years of receiving their citizenship. They went back to visit family. The world has certainly changed.
One of the extraordinary things in my electorate, and it is another of our absolute challenges, is that we have the largest jobs-to-work deficit in Victoria. That means that, with 270,000 people living in the city of Wyndham, too many have to leave our area to find employment; too many do the long road trip or the long train trip. Not enough jobs are being created in our area. It's a focus for our local government, it's a focus for our state government and it's certainly a focus for me.
I want to finish on the things that we kickstarted out of my office in recent weeks. We had a visit from Jason Clare, who is the shadow minister for homelessness and member for Blaxland. He talked to our not-for-profits and our community organisations in the homelessness space, where the numbers are increasing. We had a visit from Catherine King, who is the shadow minister for infrastructure and member for Ballarat. She sat with our local government to talk about the infrastructure needs and the directions that local governments see us going in. We've also had a forum with Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong and the shadow minister for NBN and Centrelink. It was absolutely fabulous to welcome Bill back into the electorate in his new role—a stark reminder that, if we had won government, there would have been 40 new jobs in Centrelink to help with people's wait times. We heard a lot of sad stories about the NDIS. They're hard to hear, but they're much, much harder to live.
I wish to speak tonight about the important but often concealed issue of adoption. The public profile of adoption has waxed and waned in prominence over the past century. Historically and architecturally, adoption has provided a side door rather than a grand entrance to family making, though altering the structure of both family and society. Perceived pragmatically as a ready solution for some of life's most private troubles, it has been a socially and politically sanctioned panacea for the problem of unwanted pregnancies up until the later part of the 20th century. As such, adoption has been a cradle of torment for some and, paradoxically, hope for others. Over the last 40 years, the status and accessibility of adoption in Australia has changed significantly.
The contested nature, complex history and fluctuating prevalence of adoption as a means of forming family provides fertile ground for sociological investigation and yet few sociologists have made adoption the focus of their research. In the 1980s, following years of infertility and prior to giving birth to our own children, my husband and I experienced a personal journey with adoption. However, it was at university during my social work studies that the subject triggered my interest again and I began investigating adoption in Australia. Discovering the small number of children now offered for adoption in Australia, I became curious about who adopts out their child and in what circumstances.
The number of adoptions in Australia today is a fraction of the numbers in the early 1970s. The registered peak occurred in 1972, with just 9,798 adoptions Australia wide. The most recent data shows just 292 adoptions occurred in 2015, with only 23 babies under the age of one years old adopted out nationally, where the adoptive parents are unknown and unrelated to the child. This reduction in adoption is significant and, I believe, justifies investigation to understand why adoption as a reproductive option has all but ceased. Australian adoption research has largely focused on historical accounts of the period between the 1950s and 1970s, often referred to as the coercive period of adoption when single mothers were forced to give up their illegitimate children in, what was considered at the time, the best interest of the child. These studies are derived predominantly from psychological and welfare oriented research and have generally depicted adoption as a faulty policy that has generated considerable trauma for survivors.
More recent research identifies a range of aspects that have contributed to a shift away from adoption, including delayed parenting, resulting in declining fertility rates, effective birth control, legalisation and access to abortion, the emergence of family planning centres and the introduction in 1973 of the supporting mothers benefit and consequent increased social acceptance of raising children outside registered marriage. These factors have all contributed to the changing views in Australian society which have altered the circumstances in which adoption might be considered appropriate. Even so, adoption remains a legal means to manage unwanted pregnancy and provides a means to create family for others. Nevertheless, the legitimacy of this choice is questioned.
Johnson, Dowd and Ridgeway define legitimacy as a social process whereby a social object—in this case a birth mother who makes the choice to adopt out her child—is analysed implicitly or explicitly as legitimate. The social object is construed as legitimate when consistent with cultural beliefs, norms and values that are presumed to be shared by others. The problem has emerged in adoption where there appears to be a disconnect between the legality and the legitimacy of choosing to adopt out. In 2001 in Australia, Marshall and McDonald argued:
A woman considering adoption … is doing so under strong emotional pressure not to surrender her child … No matter how well considered and responsible may be a decision taken in her own interests and those of her child, she is likely to find that she must bear, in addition to her inevitable grief and doubts, the burden of gratuitous criticism and lack of understanding.
Castle concludes:
… the objective of making a "good" choice—opting for a perceived "better life" for the child—is less likely to be accepted as "good", given contemporary cultural structures and perceptions that explicate "you don't have to".
While the consequence of this is untold, it appears that the perennial adoption theme of shame may be differently shaped but still present. Contributing to what I refer to as the stigma of adoption choice is the dominant family ideology defined as a heterosexual couple and their biological children, which tends to pathologise non-genetic forms of family structure such as adoption. Ellison refers to stigma that relates to a fear of failing standards and of 'socially accepted forms of maternity'.
International news and documentaries have few stories on adoption and more recently have focused on negative portrayals of adoption, such as corrupt adoption practice or stories of overseas adoption that have included child trafficking and abuse. Positive and negative portrayals of adoption affect its cultural and social perception. Research shows media stigmatises adoption in its portrayals. Education has significant impact on impressionable minds, and evidence shows that, in the case of contraceptive failure, educational material represents adoption as an option five times less often than abortion.
The question is how legislation and economic and social forces enable or constrain a birth mother's self-determination to adopt out, given her dependency on systems and structures that need to be legitimated. Does she experience stigma or isolation in her decision due to a perceived moral deviation from our notions and practice of motherhood? A seismic shift has occurred in the last four decades where the floating and largely invisible tectonic plates representing legitimacy and accessibility of adoption and abortion have reversed positions. In the 1960s, society accepted adoption as the most suitable outcome for unplanned pregnancy for unfit mothers, and abortion was illegal. In contrast, while abortion is widely accepted as the most common choice to manage unwanted pregnancy today, adoption has become illegitimised.
Reproductive choice is cast in the paradigm of an individual right. Despite this, it continues to be a highly contentious subject with little neutral territory in which to consider the many vulnerabilities of a pregnant woman who does not wish to parent. The debate about reproductive rights has been framed by academics and feminists who influence what constitutes a legitimate choice in the eyes of a pregnant woman, public opinion, legislation and policy.
While women continue to struggle for equality in the workplace, pregnant working women experience increased economic vulnerability, with risk to income stability and career pathways. Women confronted with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy are also primarily expected to manage the precariousness of the situation on their own. As Castle states:
That one is alone with the consequences of the pregnancy is a defining parameter of the decision.
It is important to understand how a pregnant woman experiences vulnerability in reproductive decision-making in terms of risk and insecurity when she does not wish to parent. I argue that more needs to be done by government to improve access to adoption and its standing in society as a legitimate solution to an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:29