I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The coalition government's first priority is to keep Australia and our communities safe. This bill is a significant step towards ensuring just that, by ensuring our agencies have the appropriate tools to keep pace with modern technology as it evolves.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill will provide for a step change in international cooperation to combat crime. Almost every serious crime and national security threat today has an online element. Not only is technology advancing at an exceptional rate; we are also witnessing an unprecedented surge in online platform development and use.
A globalised economy brings with it an abundance of opportunities—and this government always welcomes advancements that enhance our productivity and make the lives of everyday Australians easier.
However, a digitally connected world also means data is increasingly stored in other countries, which in turn means vital evidence of serious criminality is often distributed across multiple jurisdictions. Crucial electronic evidence—from messages between violent extremists plotting terrorist attacks, drug syndicates planning major imports to child exploitation material shared on online platforms—is often stored out of Australian agencies' reach.
Our agencies' ability to deter, detect, investigate and prosecute national security threats and serious crimes, now more than ever, is heavily reliant upon significant international cooperation in order to overcome these cross-border barriers and access crucial evidence.
Accessing internationally-held data is increasingly important to Australian law enforcement. However, it is also an increasingly complex and intensive task. The nature of modern data storage and cloud computing means that data is transient. Data stored by a company seamlessly moves between physical international servers, making it very difficult for law enforcement and national security agencies to pin it down and collect it. This data is also volatile and is often deleted before our police or national security agencies can lawfully access it. The need to act fast to secure evidence of a serious crime has never been more critical.
Our agencies currently rely on mechanisms like mutual legal assistance agreements to seek critical evidence and information needed to combat serious crime. However, these mechanisms were designed in a very different time. They are cumbersome, resource intensive and no longer an effective means of obtaining electronic information in the modern digital age.
This means that our law enforcement agencies struggle to secure access to valuable evidence in a timely and legally admissible form. It also means we face unacceptable delays to criminal justice outcomes.
To resolve these issues, Australia and like-minded countries are working to create a new framework of modern international crime cooperation, underpinned by robust privacy and civil liberties protections. This framework will allow law enforcement to request data directly from communications providers and technology companies in trusted partner countries by agreements and with independent authorisation. Allowing targeted and independently authorised direct access will significantly reduce the time it takes to receive vital data that is critical to detecting, preventing, investigating and successfully prosecuting serious criminal offenders.
The United States, where most of the world's largest communications and technology providers are based, has paved the way forward through its Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act) and through signing the first of these new cross-border access to data agreements with the United Kingdom.
Australia stands to benefit significantly from participating in this new framework of international crime cooperation. This follows the Minister for Home Affairs' joint announcement with the US Attorney-General late last year that formal negotiations have commenced for a bilateral 'CLOUD Act' agreement.
This bill is necessary to give effect to agreements like this. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act) has a domestic framework for interception and access to stored communications and telecommunications data. However, warrants under this framework do not have international reach.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill will amend the TIA Act to include a new framework for international production orders that can operate beyond Australia to seek data from service providers in another country, where an international agreement is in place. This will complement the existing framework for domestic warrants and authorisations in the TIA Act.
This legislation will be a significant step in increasing the effectiveness of Australian investigations and prosecutions of serious crimes—without the significant delay that can often accompany international crime cooperation.
Our Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agencies will be able to apply for an independently authorised order for communications interception, stored communications or telecommunications data to be served on a 'designated communications provider' in the other country by a coordinating Australian Designated Authority.
The legislation sets up a framework to support criminal justice outcomes—it will be used to investigate serious criminal offences and for monitoring compliance with control orders. The legislation will also support the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to carry out its functions in protecting Australians from terrorism.
The legislation is crucial to ensure agencies can adapt to the modern age of communication and global connectivity. Designated communication providers will include carriers and carriage service providers, as well as message application providers, voice and video call application providers, storage back-up providers, and other electronic content providers such as website providers, chat forums and social media platforms.
It is important that Australia is able to provide reciprocal access to data to international partner countries. This legislation will amend the regulatory framework to ensure Australian companies are able to provide this reciprocal assistance.
This will be achieved through exemptions to existing prohibitions in Commonwealth law on disclosure of data. However, it is important to note that this legislation does not place any new obligations on our communications providers to disclose data to partner authorities.
The mechanism by which incoming orders or requests come to Australian providers will be determined by individual agreements, and the government is committed to ensuring each agreement under this framework provides essential protections for our communications providers and community. Every request will need to be appropriately authorised and oversighted.
Rigorous privacy protections will also be ensured under each individual agreement. Like our domestic regime, privacy protections are built in to the legislation and the extent to which the privacy of any person would be affected, or the intrusiveness of the order where it relates to national security, will be a primary consideration before an order can be issued.
Information obtained under an order will be protected against use or disclosure unless a specified exception applies. Breach of this prohibition carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment. Agencies will only be able to use or share that information for specific purposes only.
Agencies will also not be permitted to retain this information where there is no longer a legitimate reason to do so, and will be required to destroy this information when it is no longer required for a permitted purpose. By design, the legislation has clear limits and comprehensive safeguards around access to data.
There will be rigorous oversight and accountability measures, consistent with the current domestic warrants regime. The Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will oversee respective agencies' compliance with the legislation and report on their inspections. Agencies will also be required to keep records and provide reports consistent with the domestic framework. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an annual report in both houses of this parliament.
The government is committed to ensuring that agreements designated under this framework are with countries that apply strict oversight and accountability. This government is committed to developing each designated agreement to ensure those measures and privacy protections are appropriate and enshrined. There will also be comprehensive consideration by parliaments of each individual agreement.
The legislation also gives a provider the ability to object to an international production order it has received if it believes the order does not comply with the international agreement. This is an important protection. The Australian Designated Authority will, under this legislation, have the power to respond to that objection by cancelling the order.
This legislation is an essential step to enable a bilateral 'CLOUD Act' agreement with the United States. Given our agencies are making a significant and increasing number of requests to the United States, this bilateral agreement will provide our law enforcement and national security agencies with independent authorisation for efficient access to cross-border data.
In conclusion, access to overseas data is increasingly necessary for investigating crime and combatting serious threats in a globalised and electronically connected world. Cross-border transfers of data are now a part of everyday life—indeed it is a necessary and appropriate way of how we live and do business in the 21st century. However, as serious criminals and malicious actors adapt to these changes, so too must our agencies.
This framework is a way forward for our agencies to respond to the challenges of an evolving technological landscape to ensure serious crimes and national security threats can be combatted more efficiently, with appropriate authority and oversight.
This legislation demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring the safety of all Australians by working seamlessly in international law enforcement cooperation, and by equipping our law enforcement and national security agencies with the appropriate and modern tools for the job.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report entitled Protecting the age of innocence: report of the inquiry into age verification for online wagering and online pornography together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I'm pleased to present this report, Protecting the age of innocence, the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs' inquiry into age verification for online wagering and online pornography.
There can be no doubt that we are increasingly living in an online world, and no-one is more active online than our children and young people.
Fifteen- to 17-year-olds have the highest percentage of internet usage in the country, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The internet offers our children new ways to learn, play, and connect with their friends and family, but it has also made them vulnerable to new threats. All over the country, parents are rightly asking themselves if they really know what their children are doing online. With the widespread use of mobile phones and tablets outside the home, the truth is that many do not.
During this inquiry, the committee heard that young people today are increasingly accessing or being exposed to pornography on the internet. One submission cited Australian research indicating that 69 per cent of males and 23 per cent of females had first viewed pornography at the age of 13 or younger.
In many cases children's exposure to pornography is unintentional or outside parents' control. Parents, teachers, and others recounted firsthand experiences of children in their care encountering pornography online through friends or schoolmates, or as a result of totally innocuous web searches.
This pornography being accessed even by primary school students is much more extreme and, in some cases, more violent than ever before. We're not talking about the occasional discarded Playboy magazine of the past. The committee heard about a barrage of pornography accessible free of charge online which increasingly portrays sexual violence, non-consensual behaviour and highly distorted gender roles. Disturbingly, it is the pornography that portrays this kind of behaviour which is among the most popular.
The impact this material is having on our children and our young people is extremely concerning.
The committee heard how exposure to this extreme content is reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes, contributing to unrealistic understandings of sex and sexuality, and even normalising sexual violence.
In the words of Ms Julie Inman-Grant, the eSafety Commissioner, 'There are deep and legitimate concerns about how ready access to online pornography might impact the social sexualisation of an entire generation.'
More broadly, the committee heard about exposure to pornography contributing to poor mental health, anxiety about body image, eating disorders, reduced academic performance, erectile dysfunction, feelings of guilt and embarrassment about sex, and even systemic issues such as violence against women.
In relation to online wagering, the committee received fewer submissions. Nonetheless, we heard about how exposure at a young age can lead to problem gambling later in life.
Though not directly in the scope of this inquiry, we also heard that children are increasingly being exposed to simulated gambling through what are called 'loot boxes' in video games, which can act as a gateway to other forms of gambling.
As many as 160,000 Australian adults suffer right now, today, severe problems in their lives as a result of gambling. Up to a further 350,000 Australian adults currently display gambling behaviours which may make them vulnerable to problem gambling in the future. Problem gambling is strongly linked to increased financial problems and bankruptcy, increased likelihood of family breakdown, substance abuse, anxiety and depression, and even suicide. We must prevent children from heading down this path.
To say that there is a great deal of public concern about these issues would be a dramatic understatement. The committee received over 3,000 contributions, mostly from individual members of the public. More often than not, these submissions expressed Australians' horror and dismay at the material being accessed by young people, and the impact it is having on their lives. The stories of the harm being done to our vulnerable children were frequently distressing to hear. It is critical that we find more effective ways to protect our children online.
This inquiry considered the potential role for age verification technology to provide some of that protection by making it much harder for children and young people to access online wagering and pornography.
Online age verification is not a new concept. However, the committee heard that the technology for online age verification has become more sophisticated. There are now a range of age verification services available which can balance effectiveness and ease of use with the privacy, safety, and security that Australians demand.
We heard about methods which include verifying a user's age against a government issued identity document or estimating a user's age using biometric data. Another method involves using a retail card where the user's identification is sighted over the counter at the point of purchase and no identifying information is retained. These methods and others can be mixed or offered as choices to give users the flexibility and the reassurance of privacy and security they need.
The committee recognises that none of these methods are perfect. Age verification is by no means a silver bullet, and protecting children and young people from online harm requires government, industry, and the community to work together across a range of fronts. However, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Based on the evidence we received, the committee concluded that age verification can create a significant barrier to prevent young people—and particularly young children—being exposed to harmful online content. It won't solve the problem overnight, but it will dramatically reduce accidental exposure and make it far harder for even determined older children to get access.
The committee has therefore made six recommendations in support of the implementation of online age verification in Australia. The committee recommended that the Digital Transformation Agency lead the development of standards for online age verification. These standards will help to ensure that online age verification is accurate and effective and that the process for legitimate consumers is easy, safe, and secure.
In particular, no personal information other than the user's age-related eligibility should be shared between the age-verification provider and the age-restricted site, and the storage of personal information should be minimised so as not to create a 'honeypot' of sensitive data attractive to crime syndicates.
The committee also recommended that the Digital Transformation Agency develop an exchange to support the provision of accredited third-party age verification in Australia.
In relation to pornography, the committee recommended that the eSafety Commissioner lead the development of a roadmap for introducing mandatory age verification for online pornographic material. This should be part of a broader, holistic approach to address the risks and harms associated with online pornography, but it is a vital part. I urge the government to take note of the committee's recommendations in this area and ensure that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is adequately resourced to carry out this work.
For wagering, the committee recommended quite simply that the Australian government implement a regime of mandatory age verification alongside the existing identity verification requirements.
The committee also recommended the development of educational resources for parents and consideration of options for restricting access to loot boxes in video games, including though the use of age verification.
The committee believes that together these recommendations will contribute to the safer online environment for children and young people we desperately need.
In closing, I again acknowledge the strong public interest in this inquiry and on behalf of the committee thank all of the individuals and organisations who shared their views with the committee.
This is not rocket science. We place age restrictions on this kind of material in the offline world for a reason. It is harmful for children and young people, and they should not have access to it. We need to ensure that the age restrictions that rightly apply to content or services offline in the physical world are also enforced online. Put simply, what is illegal in the physical world must be illegal in the online world.
I'd like to thank members of the committee for the work with which they have assisted me and the secretariat. I want to acknowledge in particular the member for Newcastle. Whilst technically there is a dissenting report, the practical effect of it is that there are only a number of additional comments that the member for Newcastle is making, and I want to thank her for the bipartisan approach that she's taken and her other members have taken in this regard.
I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I t hank the chair of our committee for those earlier comments . They are correct : whilst Labor is not making a dissenting report, we wish to add some additional comments to the committee's work. As deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs , I acknowledge the strong bipartisan support there is in this place for keeping children and young people safe online. Labor members of the committee support work to protect children and young people from harmful e ffects of online pornography and gambling. These harms are real and cause a great level of concern in our community.
Labor members of the committee understand that we live in an era where technology e volves rapidly and where many children have greater facility with technology than their parents and carers. In this environment, a holistic, multi faceted and layered approach to protecting children and young people online is an ongoing necessity. Such an approach includes adult supervision ; technological access prevention measures ; and the education of children and adults alike. A multilayered approach is necessary because the fact is that there is no control mechanism that is 100 per cent effective at all times.
Labor members of the committee acknowledge that there is no silver bullet for addressing online harm. We appreciate that age verification should not be seen as a panacea. We understand that age verification is still a nascent field and we recognise that further review and research is needed if age verification is ever to be successfully implemented or provide a workable solution. But it is imperative that we explore and do our best to develop potential measures for keeping kids safe online. That is why Labor members of the committee support the development of a road map for the implementation of age verification technology as well as the legislative framework that would support it, subject to further research and review.
Labor's position is consistent with the Australian government's eSafety Commissioner. In a 9 December 2019 blog , available on the website of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, the commissioner states :
… eSafety has supported the implementation of age verification technology, as well as the legislative framework that would support it — subject to further research and review.
Labor members of the committee accept that without adequate research and review any new system might fail to address serious issues of safety, data security, privacy, and freedom of expression , and i t might well fail to win public trust or even be effective as a measure for keeping children safe online.
We note that after years of work and millions of pounds expended on its proposal to introduce age verification for online pornography, the UK government announced that it will not be proceeding with it . This demonstrates how complicated it is to get age verification right. Labor members of the committee regard further research and review to be intrinsic to recommendation No. 3 in this committee report, which recommends the development of a road map ; a program of consultation ; activities for awareness raising and education ; and recommendations for complementary measures.
I'd like to make a brief mention of the loo t boxes that the chair , the member for Fisher , referred to previously. The Labor members of the committee did note at the time that the terms of reference of thi s inquiry did not reference loot boxes and that the key stakeholders did not have an opportunity to provide written submissions or oral evidence to the inquiry in relation to loot boxes. Labor members of the committee consider, therefore, that any work on option s to restrict access to elements of computer and video games should be done now in consultation with industry and stakeholders.
In conclusion, the Labor members of the committee support the recommendations of this inquiry, and Labor will look closely at what the eSafety Commissioner can come up with to address this difficult but very important issue. We consider that, given the amount of work needed to inform the approach to age verification, it is also imperative that work on other initiatives to strengthen online safety is done in tandem. To that end, we thank submitters for providing suggestions for other measures and initiatives to improve online safety and we encourage the government to reclassify and release the report of the expert working group, convened by the eSafety Commissioner and participated in by industry, so the broad range of stakeholders committed to improving online safety may have the benefit of this work.
Finally, I too wish to acknowledge the work of the committee. I thank the chair for his very measured approach in the inquiry and certainly my thanks to the secretariat, as well as the many individuals and organisations that made submissions or appeared as witnesses before the inquiry. Thank you for your input, your engagement, your expertise and your advocacy on this very serious issue in our society.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, I present the committee's report entitled Report of the inquiry into vegetation and land management policy relating to bushfires, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I present the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy's inquiry into vegetation and land management policy relating to bushfires. This inquiry commenced in December 2019. It was to consider the efficacy of past and current vegetation and land management policy, practice and legislation and their effect on the intensity and frequency of bushfires and the subsequent risk to property, life and the environment.
On 26 February 2020, however, the committee agreed to conclude the inquiry following the Prime Minister's announcement a few days earlier of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. The committee examined the royal commission's terms of reference and assessed that they overlap significantly with those of this inquiry. The royal commission's timeline also means that both processes would have been going on simultaneously. The royal commission will be a major national exercise. The committee considered it best to give way to that process to avoid any confusion and prevent duplication of resources and demand.
By the time of our decision to conclude, the committee's inquiry had received 69 submissions and held one public hearing. The committee intends to write to the royal commission, providing the evidence gathered and published by the committee during our inquiry and inviting the royal commission to draw upon that evidence in its considerations. I hope they do so, because there is considerable insight contained within those submissions, reflecting demonstrable expertise and in some cases hands-on experience with respect to bushfires in Australia, in particular the bushfires of the season that has just passed. The brief report I'm presenting today does not include any analysis of the evidence that was received nor make any recommendations. We now regard that as a matter for the royal commission. On behalf of the committee, I encourage any Australian with perspectives, any Australian with experience on bushfires, in particular the events of recent months, to engage with the royal commission. It is vitally important that their voices are heard and accounted for.
I want to thank the members of the committee for their engagement with this inquiry, I want to thank the secretariat and I wish the royal commission well in their important work. Finally, I wish to acknowledge that the recent bushfires across Australia have had a devastating impact on so many communities and on so many Australians. On behalf of the committee I extend our heartfelt sympathies not just to those affected but to those who assisted in fighting the fires and supporting those who were affected. I also pass on our deepest gratitude. With that, I'm happy to table the report to the House. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the following report, together with the minutes of proceedings: Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2019 (first report).
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—On 4 February 2020, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) left official interest rates unchanged at 0.75 per cent. In making this decision, the governor said the RBA judged that 'with interest rates having already been reduced to a very low level and recognising the long and variable lags in the transmission of monetary policy, the Board decided to hold the cash rate steady at this meeting'.
This decision by the RBA, and a range of other topics, were scrutinised at the committee's public hearing on 7 February 2020. The committee continued its important work in providing public accountability and transparency in the operations of the Reserve Bank of Australia.
The RBA expects growth in the Australian economy to strengthen gradually, with the RBA's central scenario forecasting GDP growth of around 2.75 per cent over 2020 and three per cent over 2021—it needs to be put in the context of when this meeting was held. This outlook, the governor commented, is being 'supported by accommodated monetary policy, a new expansion phase in the resources sector, stronger consumer consumption and spending and a recovery in dwelling investment later this year'.
Following on from global uncertainty caused by trade disputes between the United States and China, the phase 1 deal struck between these two powers has lessened tensions and the global economy has picked up again. This is expected to help drive growth in Australia with more certainty in export markets.
Inflation remains low in the Australian economy and underlying inflation has been below two per cent for around three years. CPI inflation was 1.8 per cent over 2019 and is forecast to lift gradually to around two per cent over the next year or so.
The labour market has continued its strong growth and the unemployment rate declined to 5.1 per cent in December 2019. The governor stated that he expects this to fall to a little below five per cent as the economy grows. The governor noted that 'most of the forward-looking indicators, including job vacancies and hiring intentions, suggest there is going to be reasonable growth over the months ahead'.
The governor explained that the labour force participation rate is the highest it has ever been, so even with strong job growth of an average of 2½ per cent, the unemployment rate has only come down slightly. The RBA noted that this means more Australians than ever before are in the workforce. As the economy grows, those workers seeking more hours should be able to take on more work, which will help address the issue of underemployment.
The impact of the drought, bushfires and, at the time of this meeting, the coronavirus, or COVID-19, on the economy are expected to be significant in the coming months—and that has only become clearer as time has gone on. The RBA has forecast a 0.2 per cent decline in GDP growth over the year due to the bushfires, a 0.25 per cent decline due to the drought and, at that time, 0.2 per cent due to the virus. The RBA advised the committee that the full impact of the coronavirus, in particular, is difficult to forecast as 'much will depend on the success of the various efforts to control the virus'—and we note the activity on the markets only in recent days.
Since the hearing, the outbreak of COVID-19 has escalated. The risk it poses to the Australian economy is slowly being revealed, particularly for small and medium enterprises reliant on goods through supply chains and customers from China. Many SMEs face increasing risks to accessing stock for customers. It may take many months for supply chains to fill existing gaps and provide reliable supplies. Similarly, service based businesses face increased risks from declining demand.
The consequences of the RBA's decision to lower interest rates in the second half of 2019 are also now being realised. Money is already cheap and that leaves the RBA with limited flexibility to further reduce rates and adjust to unexpected shocks.
Since the hearing, the RBA has reduced rates by a further 25 basis points to 0.5 per cent. While initial market reactions were positive and provided a degree of confidence, this is likely to only be temporary. Reducing interest rates may build temporary confidence, but it is a solution to a misdiagnosed problem. The Australian economy does not face a problem of liquidity.
The temporary challenge the Australian economy faces relates to a crunch of supply in some sectors, and demand in others. In the short to medium term, COVID-19 will present serious challenges to SMEs in terms of meeting their financial obligations while maintaining employment levels. That's why the Prime Minister is right to say that what we need to do is keep businesses open and people in jobs. The banking sector faces a significant challenge to reassure customers and provide flexible financing options through a serious but the nonetheless temporary event.
In light of the temporary nature of the challenge, and with a view towards retaining capacity to readjust amidst a recovery, the RBA should consider the efficacy of conditional longer-term funding options for retail banks. This would aim to enable SMEs to continue trading while the crisis is ongoing, thereby ensuring that SMEs are in the best position to maintain employment levels and lead a post-COVID-19 recovery. Doing so would also ensure the RBA does not continue tapping into the already 'empty well' of low rates.
The committee remains concerned about the impact of low interest rates on Australians who rely on interest-bearing products for income. The committee will continue to hold the RBA on these matters and to account for the effects of interest rate decisions on all Australians and the Australian economy. The committee will also continue to closely examine the effects of the fires, drought and coronavirus as they develop.
On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Philip Lowe, and other representatives of the RBA for appearing at the hearing on 7 February 2020. I'd also like to thank the secretariat, ably led by Stephen Boyd. And, because I'm in a magnanimous mood this morning, I'd also like to thank the deputy chair for his contributions as well the Labor members and the government members as well.
The committee will scrutinise the RBA at further public hearings on Friday, 14 August 2020. I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's Advisory report on the Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The ability for farm business owners to access credit with reasonable and fair terms is an integral part of agri-business. A fair and equitable banking system for all Australians has come into sharp focus in recent years, with the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry bringing to light a raft of issues. The committee has been overseeing the remediation of these issues in its rolling review of the four major banks and other financial institutions.
The Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019 was presented on 22 July 2019 by Ms Rebekah Sharkie MP, the member for Mayo, as:
A Bill for an Act to amend the Banking Act 1959 in relation to loans to primary production businesses and related purposes.
On 25 July 2019 the Selection Committee referred the bill to the House Economics Committee for consideration.
The bill seeks to provide certainty and fairness to small farm businesses taking out loans under $5 million, by setting standard practices for all authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) offering such products. These measures include easy-to-read one-page summaries of clauses that may trigger non-monetary default by the borrower; prohibiting catch-all material adverse change clauses in loan documents, except where it relates to fraud or criminal activity; requiring a 30-business-day notice period before an ADI can exercise a power under a general restriction; and requiring the lender to contact the borrower and request to meet at least six months prior to the expiry of the loan.
The committee held a roundtable public hearing with the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman; the Australian Financial Complaints Authority; the Rural Policy and Farm Performance Division, Department of Agriculture; and the Australian Banking Association. This roundtable discussion covered the reform measures as outlined in the bill.
The National Farmers Federation (NFF) contributed a submission that was supportive of measures in the bill, noting the importance of fairness and transparency for both the lender and the borrower.
The committee recommends that these suggested measures be considered by the government as a part of its royal commission implementation road map or any subsequent legislation that may arise.
Being in the magnanimous position that I was in the earlier report, I would like to express my frustration that we couldn't have the full participation of all the committee members in this important roundtable, because of the petulance of members of the opposition in constantly calling divisions and quorums. The deputy chair of the committee may have further observations to make, since I was not able to be present throughout the committee. This is the consequence of their petulance and childishness. In practice, what it leads to is less consideration of legislation, less consideration of important committee work and a circumstance where the parliament isn't able to fulfil its full and proper function. The committee recommends that these changes be considered.
On behalf of the committee, I thank all of the participants at the roundtable and the NFF for their submission to the inquiry. I thank the secretariat. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—In continuation of the magnanimity that has been demonstrated in the House, I'd like to wish the chair a happy 40th birthday for next week and pass my thanks on to the committee secretariat, the Reserve Bank governor, the assistant governors and others who've come before us.
The committee heard from the Reserve Bank governor about the state of the Australian economy in 2019. The governor noted that there had been slow growth in household spending, saying:
For some time now, households have been gradually adjusting their spending to slower growth in income.
At that time, the governor was hoping for some economic pick-up. That now seems much less likely. The governor also went to some of the more deep-seated challenges in the Australian economy. He said:
I fear that our economy is becoming less dynamic. We're seeing lower rates of investment, lower rates of business formation, lower rates of people switching jobs, and in some areas lower rates of R&D expenditure. So right across those metrics it feels like we're becoming a bit less dynamic. I worry about that for the longer term.
So it's clear that the Reserve Bank governor has significant concerns about the health of the economy which predate the bushfire and coronavirus issues, significant as they may turn out to be.
We also heard from the Reserve Bank their forecasts from the February Statement on monetary policy, which has inflation remaining below the target band until the end of 2021, suggesting to my mind that the Reserve Bank has become troublingly comfortable with a rate of inflation that sits below the target band. We also heard from the Reserve Bank governor:
My own view is that the society would be better off having lower housing prices relative to people's incomes.
The Reserve Bank governor noting that, while there is a temporary wealth effect, the ongoing effect of higher housing prices is, on balance, negative for the economy. This is reinforced by research from Diego May, Gabriela Nodari and Daniel Rees published in the Australian Economic Review, which found:
… increases in household wealth supported household spending between 2013 and 2017, when growth in disposable income was weak.
In effect, house price rises masked the fall in household incomes, allowed households to keep on spending and meant that we didn't immediately see the structural weaknesses in the economy, which many have noted have been there since 2013—perhaps, not coincidentally, the moment in which the coalition government was elected.
In the context of scrutiny of the Reserve Bank, it's pleasing that there is an increasing body of research and public commentary around the role of the Reserve Bank. One of the problems in macroeconomics has been that some of the country's best macroeconomists are in the Reserve Bank or Treasury, which means the quality of the macroeconomic commentary isn't as good as it is on issues such as, for example, public finance, labour markets or industrial organisation. But now we're increasingly seeing work by researchers such as the University of Sydney's Stephen Kirchner, who astutely pointed out that the Reserve Bank had said in their November minutes that board members 'recognise the negative effects of lower interest rates on savers and confidence'. That led me to a line of questioning to ask the governor about whether interest rate cuts would indeed reduce confidence. He acknowledged that what the board minutes should have said was that interest rate cuts reduce the 'confidence of savers'. He acknowledged the correctness of Stephen Kirchner's research showing that interest rate cuts boost business and consumer confidence.
I have also benefited from the research of the University of Melbourne researcher Bruce Preston, whose important paper 'The case for reform of the Reserve Bank of Australia policy and communication strategy' has been influential on my thinking. Professor Preston has criticised the way in which the Statement on Monetary Policy has in some sense been put off to one side in recent years, with inflation sitting below the target band for almost the entire period of Governor Lowe's governorship. As Professor Preston says:
If we are not meant to take the language of the Statement literally, what language should we take literally? If the Statement on the Conduct of Monetary Policy does not specify the objectives to which the RBA is accountable, what public document does?
Isaac Gross at Monash University has also contributed valuable research using the Reserve Bank's so-called MARTIN model—standing for 'MAcroeconomic Relationships for Targeting INflation'. He uses that model to estimate the impact on the economy of a large quantitative easing program, suggesting that it would reduce unemployment by 0.3 percentage points, equivalent to 40,000 extra jobs, and boost wages across the economy.
In my view, the current macroeconomic circumstances highlight the importance of improving the quality of expertise on the Reserve Bank Board. Australia's Reserve Bank Board does not stack up well against the expertise in other central bank boards. It would be timely to add to the expertise of the Reserve Bank Board a number of additional macroeconomists with the technical ability to challenge the work of the Reserve Bank's internal staff papers. A more capable Reserve Bank Board may not make much difference when times are good, but when times are bad it could come into its own. As the US showed in having Ben Bernanke as Chair of the Federal Reserve during the global financial crisis, expertise matters considerably in moments of crisis. I would urge the Reserve Bank and the government to consider improving the expert capability of the Reserve Bank Board.
I turn to the second report, the report of the House Standing Committee on Economics on the Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019. This reports on a piece of draft legislation which flows out of the royal commission. We know this is the royal commission that the coalition never wanted—the royal commission that Prime Minister Morrison described as a 'populist whinge', the royal commission that they voted against 26 times. As the shadow Treasurer and shadow Assistant Treasurer noted, a year after receiving the final report just six out of 76 recommendations have been fully implemented. The members for Rankin and Whitlam noted that meant that families who suffered claims-handling issues from devastating bushfires would be left without protection, there's no compensation scheme of last resort for distraught customers, and mortgage brokers have no legislated duty to act in the best interests of their customers.
The royal commission also noted a number of pieces of evidence relating to farm loans. Instances in which banks revalued assets held as security changed the loan-to-value ratio. The banks then relied on that as non-monetary default, permitting the banks to call up the loan. The royal commission referred to the difficulty farmers have in obtaining access to banking services and appropriate support, particularly in areas where the nearest branch can be some distance away. The royal commission referred to changes in the conditions of lending to the detriment of the borrower, which particularly occurred immediately following a change in the ownership of the lender.
The royal commission made a number of recommendations going to lending for farmers—a national system of farm debt mediation, valuations of agricultural land that reflect the inevitable fluctuations in the farming sector, the importance of ensuring distressed agricultural loans are managed by experienced agricultural brokers and that farm debt mediation is offered as soon as possible. The bill put forward by the member for Mayo addresses some of these issues. The government has said that it will respond to it in the context of its royal commission response. We on this side of the House simply hope that that response comes more swiftly than the response to the other 76 recommendations of the royal commission on which the government has badly dragged its heels.
As we heard from the Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the purpose of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 is to change home-care subsidies that are paid to providers from being paid in advance to being paid in arrears. In the lead-up to introducing this legislation I understand that the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians sought the advice of the Aged Care Financing Authority in relation to this legislation.
According to the Aged Care Financing Authority report presented to the government, this marks the beginning of three phases of reform to home-care payment arrangements. Essentially, we're moving from paying home-care providers in advance to ending up with a system like the NDIS, where home-care providers are paid a fee for service for the older Australians that they are caring for. I understand the first phase is set to commence in June 2020 and will trigger a change to the way providers are paid.
The second stage will involve legislation that will enable the government to deal with the unspent home-care package funds, which are currently very substantial. The second phase would commence in April 2021, and providers would only be paid the subsidy for the goods and services they actually provide to the consumer rather than receiving the full monthly subsidy amount for the recipient. Any unspent package funds would then be held by the department, not by the service provider, as is currently the case. The third phase would also commence in April 2021, and subsidy payments to providers for a consumer would be reduced by a proportion of the unspent package funds held by the provider for that recipient. I understand that this proportion is yet to be determined.
Labor do not want to hold up this bill, but we do have some concerns about the bill. We do want it to go through the parliament. I want to take this opportunity to put some of our concerns on the record around these changes. I hope and trust that the government has done its due diligence in relation to the concerns that I will raise. I do not want to see any adverse impact on providers. I do not want to see any impact on services that older Australians receive in their homes. I do not want to see any increase in home-care fees and charges to older Australians because of these changes.
Indeed, as acknowledged in the Aged Care Financing Authority report and the explanatory memorandum, some of the submissions suggested the new payment arrangements would be a risk to the viability of some providers. Many submissions referenced small providers and those particularly operating in rural and remote locations, suggesting that the risk to ongoing viability of these providers would be heightened as a result of the change in payment arrangements. Submissions from smaller providers asked that they be given special consideration and receive support to ameliorate the costs to them of the change in payment arrangements. The change from advance to arrears payments is set to commence from June 2020. Some of the service providers said this was an extremely tight turnaround for them. There is an increase in financial risk for some of the smaller service providers, who might not have adequate cash flow to deal with the payment changes. As is suggested in the Aged Care Financing Authority report, some service providers might have to revert to finding other financing arrangements, including loans or equity injections. Those home-care providers currently losing money will face significant difficulties changing over to an arrears payment arrangement. Some service providers have said that, as a result of cash flow pressures from these changes, they might be reluctant to take on new consumers during the transition phase. Service providers are also concerned that if the new payment arrangement increases administration costs then these costs will be passed on to consumers, which would in turn reduce the level of services that they are able to receive under a package.
The government has not yet detailed the savings associated with the change in these payment arrangements, which are expected to be somewhere in the vicinity of $250 million to $350 million, or what the funds will be used for. With the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to hand down its final report in November, there will be an immense amount of change before the aged-care sector. I would expect that the royal commission might also make a range of recommendations around the Home Care Packages Program that might include ideas about what to do with the unspent funds that have become part of the evidence presented in the hearings. As I indicated, the amount of unspent funds has increased substantially. In fact, it was $539 million as at June 2018 to a current pool of unspent funds of, I understand, around $750 million currently held by providers. ACFA states that this is an increase of approximately $200 million in the last 12 months. According to aged-care accountants StewartBrown, the average unspent funds per client is currently estimated to be $7,000. Given the evidence provided in the Aged Care Financing Authority report, some have put forward their concerns about the increased risk to the financial viability of service providers. As I said, the savings element of the reform is still not clear.
There are questions about why this legislative change is being made now when the royal commission isn't handing down its final report until November 2020. Of course, we have seen this government go off and say, 'We can't do this because of the royal commission and we can't do this because of the royal commission, but we are going to do this one thing and we're going to do this one thing.' It seems to be a very piecemeal approach to reform: every now and then we get some legislation or some sort of announcement to make it look like something is happening. This bill essentially just changes the home-care payment arrangement from advanced to arrears. It is the further changes down the track and, as I said, the possible impact on regional and rural providers that are our concern. The last bill the government introduced was the new commissioner functions bill. I stood in this place at the time and said that I thought it was a missed opportunity and that the government could have and should have strengthened the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. It could have been given some powers to arbitrate or to make some more decisive decisions, but of course the government has not yet decided to do that.
Interestingly, the government often says that it can't do things because of the royal commission. Essentially, it hides behind the royal commission. It says: 'No, we're not doing anything until the report'. But, extraordinarily, we did see, just before Christmas, the government make a decision to privatise the aged-care assessment teams. The government made the decision two days before Christmas and popped it up on its website. Then, after two months of everybody saying, 'This is not a good idea; why don't you wait for the royal commission report, as you keep using it as an excuse for everything,' we finally saw the government backflip on it just last week. On Thursday evening the minister said in estimates that he signed a briefing note to change his decision—'the previous minister's decision' was what he actually said—to privatise the aged-care assessment teams because of pressure from the state and territory governments.
Unfortunately, today we saw more confusion between the state and territory governments in relation to the aged-care facility in New South Wales that has been confirmed to have COVID-19 and currently has residents in isolation and staff who have been quarantined. It is very concerning that we still have some disagreements between the states and the territories in relation to how we're managing COVID-19. I look forward to getting a briefing from the government sometime later today about exactly how this is being handled.
Last month marked the third anniversary of the government's Home Care Packages Program coming to a national priority queue. We saw the priority queue grow from the very first announcement, from 88,000 older Australians waiting for home care to now, where we have around 120,000 older Australians waiting for home care. We've seen from the government various announcements—and I will give them some credit here—to try to do something about that. But, as I've said repeatedly and particularly when the Royal Commission handed down its interim report, to do 5,000 packages when you've got 120,000 older Australians waiting for home care is a mere drop in the ocean. This is crying out for very serious major reform. My big concern is the fact that the government keeps putting everything off to the royal commission and does this ad hoc, piecemeal, higgledy-piggledy reform—do this little bit here and this little bit there, say they can't do this for the royal commission but will wait for that for the royal commission.
There doesn't seem to be a clear strategy for aged-care reform. That is the problem. I sincerely hope that, when the government finally gets the recommendations from the aged-care royal commission, which is due in November of this year, they actually have a strategy on how to deal with the reforms, that they actually have a planned agenda on what reform they're going to do in what order and how they're going to do it. We cannot afford, when the aged care system is in such crisis, when we're having serious issues where we now have COVID-19 in one of the facilities, to keep doing this piecemeal, ad hoc reform. Government needs to do better.
I know they're very good at marketing over there and we've got Prime Minister Scotty, who thinks he's very clever about all this, but this is actually about old people getting services. This is people in their 90s, people's parents, aunts, uncles, relatives, brothers and sisters who are crying out for help and this government doesn't appear to be listening. This government appears to think that a bit of smoke and mirrors from time to time, a little bit of assisting 5,000 when you've got 120,000 people waiting, is good enough. It's not good enough, and I will continue to stand up in this place and hold the government accountable when it's not good enough.
We've also seen some issues with the Productivity Commission report this year about the waiting times. Because there are 120,000 people waiting on this list, we of course had the government's own Productivity Commission say that the waiting time for the high level home care packages is almost three years. Once you're approved by the Aged Care Assessment Team, you get told you need services immediately, and there is a three-year wait for this high-level care package. The report, interestingly, also revealed that older Australians are waiting longer to get into residential aged care.
We have seen the government do some things in regards to transparency on some of the home care fees; however, we're still getting reports from people all over the country about rising costs. People are concerned about administration fees, about exit fees and about other fees that they're being charged, and that is limiting the hours and the amount of care that people are able to receive. Former minister Wyatt said he would have a look at this and that he was going to do something about this, but again there doesn't appear to be any action from the government on that. We do need to hear from the government about whether or not it is going to do something about these fees and the concerns that I'm sure they are getting. If we're getting them from all over the country, they must be.
It is incredible to think that the government can do things like change the payment system, make a decision to privatise assessments but make a decision again not to privatise them, but there is no plan for reform. We still don't have mapped out 'This is what an aged-care system in Australia should look like, this is how we're going to get there and we're going to do it over this time period.' Where is the government on this? What we've seen instead over seven years is four ministers. We have seen billions of dollars ripped out of the system. We've seen a little bit of money put back in but nowhere near enough when you're talking about 120,000 people still waiting for home care. We don't have a clear plan from this government. They need to do better.
Our second reading amendment I am going to move reflects our concern about the government's inaction over the past few years. Therefore, 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 piecemeal approach to aged care reform".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak at a later time.
I'm pleased to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. Improving aged-care for senior Australians continues to be a key priority for the government, and we are making government to improve the sector. We're delivering record investment across the aged-care system, from $13.3 billion in 2012-13, growing to $21.4 billion in 2019-20 and up to an estimated $25.4 billion in 2022-23. That's an increase of over $5 billion in extra support for older Australians over the forward estimates. The government remains committed to supporting senior Australians to live in their own homes longer.
The Gold Coast's idyllic weather, proximity to beaches and amenities makes it a prime location to retire. My electorate of Moncrieff is amongst the highest in the number of senior Australians who call the central Gold Coast home. This means that we also have many senior residents who want to stay in their homes longer and are in need of care from their loved ones or are making the transition to aged care. In the year to September 2019, almost 30 per cent more seniors across the nation had access to a home-care package. Since the 2018-19 budget, the Morrison government has invested in 44,000 new home-care packages, at a cost of $2.7 billion.
This bill amends the way that home-care providers are paid the government subsidy. While I'm at it, providers shouldn't be spending people's money before they have delivered their services. StewartBrown found that at least 89 per cent of providers had sufficient liquid assets. Further, providers have access to a business advisory service. The government will be monitoring providers closely and responding if needed. I think that answers some of the questions that the member for Franklin had. Providers currently receive the monthly subsidy for a home-care recipient in advance, using an estimate based— (Quorum formed)
Providers currently receive the monthly subsidy for a home care recipient in advance using an estimate based on previous months. The provider then lodges a claim after the end of the month, at which time a reconciliation occurs. Underpayments of subsidy are then rectified immediately, while overpayments are withheld from future payments. This means that idle money often sits in providers' bank accounts, and this has created a rising level of unspent home care funds.
This old way of funding differs to how the Australian government ordinarily pays for programs and services such as the NDIS. The bill will amend the legislation so that a provider will not receive a payment in advance but will be paid the monthly subsidy for a home care recipient upon lodgement of a claim with Services Australia after the end of each month. To be clear, this will not impact on the amount of subsidy available to a care recipient under their home care package. This is an important step towards addressing stakeholder concerns regarding unspent funds and aligning home care payment arrangements with other government services.
The opposition has publicly agreed that these unspent funds should be supporting the home care system rather than sitting idle. The member for Franklin raised this in the House on 23 November 2019, and so we look forward to her support to ensure this important legislation is passed.
At the last election, Labor had no plan for senior Australians. Instead, they planned for $387 billion in new taxes, including their retirees tax, which would have—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is the member be no further heard.
They don't want to hear about their $387 billion worth of extra taxes that Labor had, so they shut me down. They closed me down because they don't want to hear about the mistakes that they were about to make. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. I want to take this opportunity at the outset to express my complete and utter dismay at this coalition government's handling of aged care. My frustration and disapproval of the government's handling of this crisis—and it is a crisis—is shared by many residents in Macarthur and across the country. It may well be that the chickens are coming home to roost. I have been contacted by numerous local residents who have suffered due to the government's blatant mismanagement of the aged care sector in recent years. I have been contacted by residents who are elderly and suffering and who can barely stand for more than couple of minutes at a time, who are not receiving the support that they are owed by this reactionary government. I have been contacted by sons and daughters and grandchildren who inform me of some of the truly horrific living standards suffered by their loved ones. I have been contacted by concerned neighbours who take it upon themselves to advocate for those who are voiceless and are being left behind by the Liberal-National government. Each and every case I hear is harrowing. People in my community are suffering needlessly owing to the government's blatant failures in aged care.
This is not a problem that's been going on for one year or two years. It's being going on for the life of the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government over six years. We have spoken a number of times in this place about the state of aged care under the stewardship of this reactionary government. The sector has been in crisis for a long time. We have had inquiries, we now have a royal commission, and we have a government that has lacked any leadership to tackle this crisis with due diligence. My heart goes out to the many people who are not receiving the assistance they deserve and to the families and loved ones who advocate so selflessly for justice. We can do better and we must do better.
The government has presided over a growing problem with aged care packages. When I first came into this place, this had been pointed out to the government then. Nothing has happened. Unfortunately the aged care packages being offered to older Australians are going undelivered in many cases, and people are suffering from a growing trend of disadvantages and delays in this sector. I thank my colleague the member for Franklin, Julie Collins MP, for her tireless advocacy in this field. She well knows the difficulty that those in aged care are suffering. I note also the advocacy of the member for Macquarie, who brought forward a motion in the House this week on this very issue.
For many older Australians, be they home owners or tenants, their home is much more than bricks and mortar. It is a catalogue of memories and experiences that have been shared over decades with friends and family in the wider community. There appears to be a belief held by some that once you get to a certain age you're expected to pack up and move into residential aged care. This neglects the many elderly Australians who want to stay in their own homes, and it removes from them part of who they are. Many elderly Australians are more than happy to remain in their homes with the assistance of the much-needed but much-delayed aged and home care packages. For instance, the most recent census found that 95 per cent of Australians aged over 65 lived in their own home.
I would like to highlight another aspect of this matter: the implications that this issue has on other sectors within our economy and society. This includes the cost of family members taking time off work to assist elderly relatives, with a Deloitte Access Economics report finding this type of informal care assistance to be valued at $60.3 billion per annum—a huge sum that shows the sheer amount of unpaid work that's being provided by families and friends to those who need it most. The report, published in 2015, also found that these same family-and-friend services will outstrip the current supply of formal packages within the next 10 years, leaving us with five years to try to correct the problem. Another area that has and will continue to be affected is our hospitals, with applicants ending up in hospital beds for long periods receiving care for injuries and illnesses sustained that could have been avoided had their home care packages been delivered.
Tragically, the Royal Commission into Aged Care, Quality and Safety heard that approximately 44 people a day died in 2018 after they had received approval for a package that was not delivered. These packages were never utilised as they were never delivered to the people who were most in need. This is a very sad state of affairs—and, for the most part, it is an avoidable tragedy, had the government made support more accessible and reliable. I strongly agree with the royal commission, who noted that these deaths are totally unacceptable. These are people requiring high-level, in home aged-care support, who never got it—who died without getting it. This is a tragedy for our nation.
Additionally, figures published in the royal commission's interim report noted that those approved for the highest level packages, levels 3 and 4, had the longest wait periods, with estimations of between nine and 12 months in the period ending 30 June 2018 and over 12 months in the period ending June 2019. These are people who have had formal ACAT assessments and were assessed as being in urgent need of support and as having severe problems, such as mobility issues, continence issues, feeding issues and respiratory issues—a whole range of severe problems—who were not provided with support at the time in their life when they really most needed it. We are failing these people, and it is a tragedy. Two very important facts stand out here. Firstly, the government have failed to improve wait times for applicants in spite of the constant times that we have reminded the government of this. Secondly, those needing the most crucial of services face the longest wait times, often suffering in pain and distress because of the health issues they have.
I hate using this phrase, but we hear it all the time from those opposite—if you have a go, you get a go. Well, these people have had a go. They've worked all their lives and they've done their best for this country, and we are failing them. It's a phrase that's been all too often used by this Prime Minister to describe the ups and downs that Australians can experience, particularly the ups if they work for it. I encourage you, Prime Minister, to look at the long list of applicants for high-level aged-care packages, their detailed application forms and their current circumstances, and to realise that elderly Australians have for decades contributed to this nation and yet we are failing them. It is time for them to get a fair go and receive their packages. I call on the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aged Care to fix our country's broken aged-care system. It's unacceptable that older Australians are having to wait months, if not years, to receive the home care packages that they deserve. This should not be a political football. Labor is prepared to work constructively with the government to get the recommendations of the royal commission off report pages and into pragmatic policy work and the delivering of services.
We have before us today a bill that the government is attempting to introduce as it pursued the shocking plans to privatise aged-care assessment services—even before the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety is allowed to hand down its final report. It's good that we've been able to at least temporarily stop the government trying to privatise the ACAT assessments, but it is shocking to me that the government would try and go ahead with this in the face of the disaster that they have in aged care.
We've just marked the third anniversary since the government handed down their Increasing Choice in Home Care reforms. One has to wonder about the significance of this occasion, given the fact that these reforms have done nothing to address the growing home care package waiting list. More than 100,000 Australians are still waiting to receive the home care package that they've been approved for. I think if anyone has had contact with elderly Australians in this situation, you would realise the terrible health issues that they are sometimes suffering from—incontinence, breathing difficulties, heart failure, swallowing difficulties, nutritional difficulties. They are terrible, terrible issues. That's 100,000 elderly mums and dads, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles who are being sorely let down by this government.
We drill into our children, and have done so for generations, the notion that we ought to respect our elders. We are taught from a young age to care for our elderly population—to treat our elders with compassion and love and, above all, with respect. This is not happening under this government. It appears that this government missed out on this lesson in ethics and civics throughout their upbringing. They are presently letting down over 100,000 older Australian who have helped build this country and who have contributed to our society throughout their lifetimes.
The government's failure in this arena is unforgivable to me. This is not a crisis that sprang out of nowhere. This was a growing issue that Labor had been attempting to work with the government on for years—certainly for far longer than I have been in this parliament. Yet all we've had are empty slogans and no action. This is something that our elderly will look back on with growing concern, particularly as we face health crises in this country. Those opposite cannot deny their complacency. They have attempted to shirk all responsibility to older Australians for years and arguably only sprang into gear following an expose on Four Corners.
I use the word 'sprang' lightly, as this government is still yet to deliver substantive change to the living standards for countless older Australians. It's unacceptable, and we would do well to put pressure on this government to urgently address the crisis which has occurred under their watch. It appears that those opposite only act or show up for the job when their marketing message is at risk. That's all they've delivered to aged care: marketing messages. There has been no substantive change. We must continue to show the government the consequences and the true human cost of their inaction and to keep the pressure on when news cameras cease covering the royal commission.
I think the royal commission's interim report title, Neglect, says it all. Older Australians have not only been sorely let down by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government but been treated with contempt and been neglected all together. It appeared to me that the government was initially going to use the royal commission as a mechanism to delay any action to address the aged care crisis plaguing Australia. They were dragged kicking and screaming to hold the royal commission after ignoring the problems in the sector for far too long, as was the case with the banking royal commission. Then it appeared they would delay taking urgent steps to begin addressing the crises, awaiting the commission's findings.
However, Neglect, the Commission's interim report, put forward three recommendations that require the government's urgent action. They were: ensure older Australians are getting the care at home when they need it most; end the overreliance of chemical restraints in aged care; and stop the unacceptable number of young people entering residential aged care. Those are three recommendations which paint a scathing picture about the government's inability to address problems in the aged-care system. Shockingly, even after receiving such a scathing and public report card from the royal commission, the coalition government's response remains woefully inadequate.
Those opposite, through their marketing prowess, would have us believe that they are taking the necessary steps to address the aged care crisis. For all of their spin, the facts remain, and the government's results are pathetic at best. In response to the royal commission's interim report, we have an extra 10,000 home care packages. For all of their valiant efforts to respond to the commission's interim findings, the government is still presiding over a system in which over 100,000 older Australians remain waiting for their approved aged care packages.
Disgracefully, for all of their spin, the government has still not delivered any funding since December 2017. There's a lot of talk, but very little action. The coalition has merely brought forward funding from other years, or else funded packages through a reduction in residential aged-care places. They are literally taking money from one part of an already struggling and failing system and placing it in another part to paint a more rosy picture for the general population. The government has harped on for too long about their long sought after budget surplus. Effectively, they are stubbornly refusing to put the necessary funding into a system in desperate need of a boost. A hundred thousand Australians are presently waiting for a package that the government has told them they are entitled to, because the government is stubbornly delaying spending money. This is what it comes down to. A budget surplus, we all agree, isn't a bad thing. But when the very social fabric and values that underpin our society are sacrificed to achieve this goal, one has to question the government's judgement and its motives. At what cost must they continue to promulgate a false narrative? (Time expired)
I rise in support of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. Working for your whole life in order to provide for your family takes commitment, dedication, drive, patience and passion—not to mention strength to face the challenges, tests and trials you will encounter in life along the way. Building up that nest egg, setting yourself up for life after work and ensuring that your children and grandchildren have the things that you never had takes time and effort. The dedication of that tradie who's just hung up his hat for the last time after many years of loyally providing for his family deserves to be reward. That single mother who has worked for years to embark on her career, put her kids through school and provide for her family deserves to be rewarded. Like many senior Australians have done before, and will do in the years to come, my parents wanted the best life possible for me. For that, I thank them. This amazing level of dedication and commitment deserves to be recognised and rewarded, not disregarded. This important legislation not only amends both the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997, but will ensure that the needs of our senior Australians are met, that they will get the support they need and that their years of hard work will not be forgotten or be in vain.
Our senior Australians have worked hard for their entire lives, and many are still finding themselves working in order to bring in income for themselves and their families. They have paid their taxes and done their fair share. The Morrison government sees that clearly and prides itself on giving back to our hardworking senior Australians and making them a top priority, so that they can comfortably retire to enjoy all the wonderful perks that life has to offer, such as travelling, attending shows or sporting events and, most importantly, spending time with their kids and grandkids, because they deserve it, they truly do.
We have more than 27,000 senior Australians living in the electorate of Longman as of today, and I am committed to delivering for every single one of them. I'm a man on a mission: to improve their lives and ensure that they can access the support and aged-care packages that they need in order to live a happy, healthy and comfortable life. One great thing that the Morrison government has done to improve the life of Longman senior residents is to increase the age pension by $117.80 for singles per fortnight and by $177.40 per couples per fortnight, benefitting the 21,433 aged pensioners that live in Longman. The Morrison government will continue to increase pension payments.
(Quorum formed) The Morrison government will continue to increase pension payments for the aged pensioners in Longman in March and September each year. This announcement by the Morrison government's welcomed by many pensioners within the community of Longman.
Not only as a government but also as a nation we must continue to support and respect our older Australians. Why? Because retirement brings its own set of challenges as well as a more relaxed life with time to yourself, your children and your grandchildren. It can also lead to loneliness and social isolation for a lot of senior Australians, who should be enjoying retirement. This is why it's important to take care of the senior members of your family, to make sure that they are happy and not drifting into social isolation. Take the time to visit them, drop in for a cup of tea and some biscuits, or walk next door and say hello to your elderly neighbour. Sometimes these moments, these brief chats, are enough to make their week, pull them out of isolation, get them out of bed in the morning and put a smile on their face. It can also encourage them to get involved in the community, such as signing up to be a member of a local club or even volunteering with a community group. Longman has great community groups, filled with great volunteers, who do a lot for the senior Australians who live in the community.
Meals on Wheels is one of those. This service provides great benefits to the elderly, not only with a hot, nutritious meal but sometimes the only person an elderly resident will see all day, or even all week, is a friendly volunteer from Meals on Wheels ready to deliver their food and have a quick chat. This makes their day, and it's something they look forward to.
We want our older Australians to live longer, healthier and more fulfilling lives by giving them a choice about how and where they want to live, giving them more aged-care options and the capacity to live independently for as long as possible. This is why the Morrison government has been actively working for our older Australians every single day. This is why the Prime Minister announced the royal commission into the aged-care sector, in order to look at the quality of care provided in residential and home aged care to senior Australians. We are committed to providing older Australians with access to care that supports their dignity. We want to ensure that the quality of life of residents of aged-care homes and consumers of home care packages, who are socially isolated or lonely, are improved.
Some senior Australians may choose to travel Australia in their caravan once they retire, or may flock to places like Bribie Island in Longman, the electorate I serve, to retire in style by the sea. But we are finding that more and more senior Australians are choosing—you
I interrupt the member for Longman. The member for Chifley is seeking the call.
I move:
That the speaker be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no further heard.
I'm speaking in support of the amendment. There are several concerns that we have about the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. Although we don't wish to hold the bill's progress up through the parliament, we are going to put forward some concerns. The concerns relate to the royal commission and the fact that the royal commission still hasn't completed its work. The government here is bringing forward this particular piece of legislation despite the fact that the final report of the royal commission won't be handed down until November.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety will hand down its final report in November. There has been an immense amount of change regarding the sector over recent years. The royal commission may make a range of recommendations around home-care packages and their programs, and it may include what to do with unspent funds that have been part of the evidence presented in the hearings. Given the evidence provided in aged-care financing and the authority's report, some have put forward their concerns about increased risk to the financial viability of some service providers.
Why make legislative changes now when the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety won't even hand down its report until November 2020? We know that this government is renowned for its piecemeal reform. Last month marked the third anniversary of the government's increasing choice in home care reforms, and three years on the question is being asked: what's been achieved from these reforms and older Australians choosing to receive aged-care services in their own homes? These reforms have done nothing at all to address the growing waiting list for care packages. There are still more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for an approved aged-care package. Sadly, almost 30,000 have died over the past two years waiting for that approved aged-care package.
My office received a call last year from a 93-year-old constituent who was complaining that, despite the fact that she had no direct relatives in the local vicinity that could care for her and she was living on her own in quite a large residence, she had still been waiting over 12 months for the approval of her aged-care package. And that is not uncommon, unfortunately, under this government and their approach to aged-care packages. That's why many older Australians, who've worked all of their lives and paid their taxes, are so frustrated with this government when it comes to aged care packages.
The government did release an additional 10,000 spots in their last budget, but the sad thing about that was that the funding wasn't additional funding. It came from earmarked funding already within the budget, and it says everything about this government's approach to budgeting and the way they mislead the Australian public about providing funds and additional services for people and how they're funding them. Around 25,000 older Australians entered residential aged care prematurely over the past two years because they couldn't get access to approved home care packages. With an ageing population, this is a problem that is growing in Australia and it's something that all of us, as local members of parliament, are experiencing in our interactions with constituents: the frustration that elderly Australians are facing with the government's system of not supporting and not providing adequate response times in respect to applications for in-home aged-care packages. That's putting pressure on the residential aged-care sector, and with an ageing population it's only getting worse.
The waitlist times under this government have blown out. Older Australians waiting for high-level packages are waiting almost three years to get care that they have been approved for. The median waiting time for older Australians going into residential aged care has grown from more a month when the Liberals and Nationals took office to now over 100 days. It's grown exponentially under their watch, and the Productivity Commission report on government services, released in January this year, revealed that older Australians waiting for high-level home care packages are waiting almost three years to get the care that they've been approved for. The report also revealed that older Australians are waiting longer to enter residential aged care. The government has made improvements to the transparency of home care fees; however, home care recipients are still raising concerns about the rising cost of administrative and daily fees that are deducted from their packages, therefore impacting the amount of care hours that they can access.
Then there's, of course, the royal commission. The findings that have been uncovered under the royal commission's auspices have been quite shocking. The royal commission handed down an interim report on 31 October last year, and that report was titled Neglectone word. The commissioners put forward three recommendations that required urgent action. The first was to ensure that older Australians are getting the care at home that they most need. Second was about the over-reliance on chemical restraints in aged care throughout Australia. The third recommendation was to stop the unacceptable number of young people entering residential aged care.
I must say that it's heartbreaking to see a young person, particularly a young person with a disability in their 30s or 40s, lingering in an aged-care facility, where they certainly don't belong. In a wealthy nation like Australia, with the living standards we enjoy, that should be something we avoid at all costs. Again that is an important recommendation of the royal commission that we hope the government will deal with.
The government's response to the interim report has been woefully inadequate, especially in relation to addressing the home-care packages waiting list. The commissioners recommended urgent action to address the home-care packages waiting list, but the government has put only 5,500 home-care packages into the system since 1 December last year. This is simply inadequate when 100,000 older Australians are waiting for their approved home-care package.
Another example of the Morrison government's piecemeal reform was the attempt to privatise the very successful aged-care assessment teams, the ACAT services. This is one element of the aged-care system in Australia that actually works very well and which there has been very little complaint about. But this government, like many Liberal governments throughout the country, saw an opportunity to privatise another essential service. It wanted to try to make bucks out of contracting out this essential service. Thankfully, at COAG last week the government was forced into an embarrassing retreat on this plan to privatise the assessment of aged-care services. The government confirmed that it has abandoned the current tender process after its plan was panned by state and territory governments, aged-care experts and even its own members of parliament.
Labor has proudly stood up for these assessment teams; for the rights of older Australians, who deserve the best aged-care services; and particularly for the government commitment to those aged-care services in the future. The Morrison government must now give a clear assurance that this important work will continue to be done by experienced and well-qualified assessors in conjunction with the states and territories. That's what older Australians want when they're accessing aged-care services and that's what they deserve. Labor will keep fighting to ensure that those important services are maintained and are properly resourced with well-trained staff by the Australian government.
The Morrison government's privatisation plan was ill-conceived from the beginning. In January the aged-care royal commissioners issued an extraordinary public correction in response to the minister for aged care's false assertion that they supported the plan to privatise aged-care assessments. That was a disgraceful misuse and manipulation of the royal commissioners. It's quite extraordinary for royal commissioners to go out of their way and issue such a statement. I think it highlights just how misleading this government has been when it comes to aged-care services. It goes to what we've seen around the sports rorts and the lack of leadership that came from this government in the management of the bushfire crisis throughout the country in recent times. They do all they can to avoid scrutiny and all they can to avoid providing the truth and facts to the Australian public. That was highlighted by the royal commissioners' response and their claims about being misrepresented by the aged-care minister through those comments.
Just last week the government's plan to outsource the assessment of aged-care services was rubbished by one of its own federal MPs in a speech in this parliament. Thankfully, that member of parliament stood up and had their voice heard when it came to providing support for those important assessment teams.
This government's piecemeal and mismanaged reform before the final report of the royal commission in November again is an example of the government asleep at the wheel. Basically it hasn't got a plan, particularly when it comes to aged-care services in the longer term.
There have been four different ministers since this government was elected to office, and there's been no consistency of approach in this portfolio. I've mentioned the over 100,000 Australians that are on the waiting list for in-care packages, and the piecemeal approach to providing funding—providing some in one budget and cutting funding for aged-care services in another. There's no consistency. There's no plan. Just like their management of the economy, there is no plan for aged-care services in this country, and Australians are suffering.
After ripping billions of dollars out of the aged-care system initially, they've lurched from one crisis to another. The money that was ripped out in those earlier budgets of the Abbott and Turnbull governments—money that was ripped out when the Prime Minister was the Treasurer, I might add—are now seeing many Australians missing out on the care that they deserve. This government must do a better job to ensure that older Australians get the quality care and services that they deserve right now, not at some stage into the future after the commission has reported.
(Quorum formed)
I would encourage colleagues opposite to stay after the quorum. This is a very interesting debate, particularly when we're talking about the most vulnerable Australians—those who actually need our assistance most. I would have thought that those opposite would have an interest in this matter. We should be clear from the outset that, firstly, as has been pointed out, we will support the passage of this bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. However, in relation to the amendments that have been moved by the shadow minister, the member for Franklin, it is instructive to look at the government's record when it comes to administering aged care.
No-one in this place should be fooled into thinking that this government actually cares for the most vulnerable in our community. If you look at the record that they have been able to muster over the last seven years, you'll see that they haven't really shown much care or empathy for the most vulnerable Australians, those who are in need of aged care. The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have clearly been asleep at the wheel or have simply been negligent. We've had four ministers, billions of dollars ripped out of the aged-care system and one crisis after another. The government in its very poor way, quite frankly, has stumbled into addressing the findings of the royal commission into aged care. It has been instructive to see what the commission put in its initial findings.
Before I do that, I'd like to talk a little about what this bill seeks to do. It seeks to change the payment for home-care subsidy providers from being paid in advance to being paid in arrears. That doesn't seem much of a change. As a matter of fact, it does seem to be practical in many respects, but it is going to require some transitioning. Like many members, I have many providers that are very low cost, many of which run on a not-for-profit basis. The change in the payment system is something that they need to be able to accommodate properly. What I've been advised is that it's not just a simple task of changing a piece of legislation. The explanatory memorandum states that the bill will 'improve the way home-care providers are paid the government subsidy on behalf of home-care package holders and will bring these arrangements in line with contemporary business practices'. I think that's probably fair. However, the Aged Care Financing Authority, the ACFA, when they were consulted about the terms of this provision contained in the bill, highlighted a series of concerns. They said, 'The new payment arrangements would be a risk to the viability of some providers.' That's precisely the information we're getting at the coalface, in our electorates, from those providers that are not multinationals and are not major businesses but are providing significant services to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Many of the stakeholders have raised issues, particularly drawing attention to the significant impacts that it would have on small providers and those operating in rural and remote locations.
The change from advance to arrears is to commence on 1 June 2020, which, you'd have to admit, is an extremely tight turnaround. I think that in itself is problematic as specified in this bill. There is an increased risk that some of the smaller service providers who do not have adequate cashflow will struggle not only to meet the time demand but to actually make the initial transition. As noted by ACFA, it may become necessary for service providers to resort to other financing arrangements, including loans and equity injections, to be able to accommodate the initial change. The change may also see some home-care providers become reluctant to take on new customers. That in itself would be problematic in that we do need to have greater provisioning of home-care services, otherwise we'll see a significant influx into residential aged care. What I'm trying to point out is that this is once again symptomatic of the government's piecemeal attitude to reform. This is no real reform; this is just making a minor change and being caught on the run.
Last month marked the third anniversary of this government's Increasing Choice in Home Care reforms—the third anniversary of that significant reform that they announced with much fanfare. But, three years on, we see that these reforms have done little to address the growing home care packages waiting lists. There are still more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for their approved home care packages—not waiting to go on a list or waiting to put an application in; waiting for the delivery of their approved packages. Sadly, almost 30,000 older Australians have died over the past two years waiting for their approved packages to be delivered and around 25,000 older Australians entered residential aged care prematurely. As I said before, for many people, if you can't get the services at home, the only alternative is to go into full-time residential aged care.
The median waiting time for older Australians going into residential care has also grown by over 100 days. It is no longer just one month; under the Liberal and Nationals, it has now grown to up to five months. So, after making that initial decision to actually set yourself up in aged care, you now have to wait some time. Bear in mind that the people we are talking about are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The people going into aged care are ordinarily well into their eighties or older—and we need to support these people. These figures make it clear that the government's simply not doing enough to support older Australians.
The Productivity Commission's report on government services, released in January this year, sheds further light on the government's mismanagement. It notes that Australians waiting for high-level home care packages are waiting almost three years to get the care that they have been approved for. That's three long years for people in our communities, in our families, and in our electorates who are doing it very tough. These years that could go into improving the quality of their lives of elderly Australians. But, rather, because of the government's mismanagement, the exact opposite is happening.
Let's not forget the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety interim report, which was handed down on 31 October last year. The interim report was interestingly titled, Neglect, and it highlighted three significant matters for this government to take urgent and immediate action to address: namely, ensuring that older Australians are getting the care at home when they need it; preventing the overreliance on chemical restraints in aged care; and, thirdly, ending the unacceptable number of young people entering residential care. The government's response to the interim report has been woeful, to say the least, especially in relation to addressing the issue of home care packages waiting lists. The commission also recommended urgent action to address home care waiting lists but, once again, what we have seen is that the government has a shortfall, putting only 5,500 home care packages into the system since December last year. That doesn't equate with more than 100,000 people, older Australians, who are currently on the waiting list. The 5,500 new packages are not really going to make a huge dint when there are 100,000 people still on the waiting list today.
My office regularly receives representations from members of my community on the issue of waiting times for approval of home care packages—and we've seen a spike in that over recent times. To highlight this, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the experience of one my constituents—and this woman has allowed me to name her. Nora David is 82 years old. Although she has been approved for a level 3 home care package, she has only been allocated a level 2 My Aged Care package. She was told that she would need to wait nine to 12 months for funding to be available for a level 3 package. With the current level 2 package, Nora has only 3½ hours of care per week. That 3½ hours is expected to meet all of her needs, including groceries, shopping, food preparation, cleaning, doctor appointments and purchasing medication, just to name a few. She goes on to say that, if she needs to visit a doctor, simply going to the surgery, taking her appointment and some wait time can basically take up her full 3½ hours, basically leaving this 82-year-old woman with no extra care for the remainder of the week.
One doctor's appointment takes out her shopping, takes out the purchase of her medication, takes out her cleaning and takes out all those things that care is supposed to be provided for. For an 82-year-old, someone who has actually been a long-term resident of this country, who has grown up here, worked and paid taxes—is that the way we really want to treat people? I remind the House that it was this Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, who was the architect of cutting almost $2 billion out of aged care. With more than 22,000 Australians aged 65 or older in my electorate of Fowler alone, I've seen the impact of the government's continued neglect on older Australians in the aged-care system.
As parliamentarians, I think we all have a responsibility to ensure the quality of care for our elderly. We need to ensure that the sector works positively to look after their needs. If we can't spend enough time and resources looking after our elderly, doesn't that mean that we as their representatives and as parliamentarians have simply failed? At some stage I think we have to admit that. The government has to be strong enough to come out and not just make another budgetary adjustment, not just fudge around waiting times but be honest and say, 'We've failed.' I call on the government to reverse their continued cuts to the aged-care sector and look to address their broken promises. Heading towards the election, make no mistake about it, they had plenty of promises on what they were going to do about aged care, but have consistently failed to meet them.
Against this background, as I said, we'll be supporting the passage of the bill. But I think that with this situation we do need to see the government show that it has the courage of its commitment to meet its electoral promises and stand up and support Labor's call to look after the most vulnerable in our society and to look after those that we have an ongoing obligation to look after, older Australians.
(Quorum formed)
I'm pleased that so many members of the government have come to hear this address, because clearly they do not have an aged-care strategy, and clearly it's once again up to Labor to lead from opposition on the issue.
Frankly, there is an aged-care crisis in this country. I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Franklin pointing out the lack of a government strategy when it comes to ageing Australians and the aged-care sector. When I look at older Australians, I see the generation that built this nation. I see the generation that built our economy and shaped our modern society—the generation that did the hard yards. They have shown aspiration at its most fundamental—aspiration not just for themselves in a selfish, individualist way. They have shown aspiration for a better life for their children, for their grandchildren, for their neighbours, for their community and, indeed, for their country. In them I see what I hope we all see: the strength and the spirit of modern Australia. And you see it everywhere you go, because, for so many Australians, the later years are an incredible opportunity. We are living longer. When people hit their 70s they were once seen as being towards the end of their life. But in so many cases today, due to medical breakthroughs, better nutrition and a range of factors, what we're finding is that people are living longer. What that represents is an incredible opportunity for those people to travel, to look after younger generations and to participate in society. Where would our civil institutions be without the contribution of older Australians? They're the ones who are keeping the clubs going. They're the ones who are there cooking on a Saturday anywhere in the country to raise two bucks from the snag sandwich to give to their local cricket club or netball club. They're the ones who, of course, got ripped off by this government's sports rorts scandal.
The fact is, though, that this situation also represents a challenge, because those older Australians are entitled to think that when they reach a stage in their life where they can no longer support themselves without assistance—whether in the home or in an aged-care facility—the contribution that they've made to this country will be paid back to them in the form of proper, adequate care which ensures that they have quality of life. And this is an issue not just for them, of course, but for their relatives. This is something that worries their kids and, indeed, their grandkids—that they're able to have a fulfilling retirement up until that point, but that, after that point as well, their later years continue to be good years. But for their part, this government—now there for seven years, three terms, with three prime ministers—the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, has no strategy, no plan, to deal with the challenge and, indeed, to reap the benefits that are there also from an ageing population.
Current policy settings are simply inadequate. Australia's lifestyle has long been the envy of the world, but when it comes to supporting our ageing population, we fall far short of that reputation. Old age, of course, isn't synonymous with aged care, but for some older Australians it is necessary—but our aged-care system is broken. We need to look no further than the royal commission into aged care quality and safety where desperate families and exhausted under-resourced aged-care workers are telling their stories, and those stories, quite frankly, are horrific. The royal commission's interim report described Australia's aged-care system as 'cruel and harmful', 'shocking' and 'All too often, they are unsafe and seemingly uncaring.' They found that:
Many of the cases of deficiencies or outright failings in aged care were known to … the regulators before coming to public attention.
Just think about that. The regulators from the government knew that these problems were there but held on to that information without making it public, therefore, delaying the public response, which is demanding action from this government. We should not allow that to continue.
For too long, governments have turned a blind eye. There's been a lack of reform and investment in aged care, in both home care and residential aged care. For those Australians who can and want to stay in their homes, a home care package provides the support that they need. But there's more than 100,000 Australians on the waiting list for such a package.
Older Australians, waiting for their high-level package, are waiting almost three years to get the care that they've been approved for. Just think about this: they have an assessment and that assessment objectively determines that they need a level of care and they have to wait three years in order to get it. And in the last two years—and I think this is perhaps the most horrific figure from the interim report and from the other information that's out there—30,000 Australians, who have been approved for home care, literally have died waiting to get that care. That's 30,000 Australians in just two years. The median waiting time for older Australians going into residential aged care has grown by more than 100 days under this government. It was around about a month, now it's five months, under this government over the last seven years.
The royal commission heard stories of degradation, suffering, abuse, neglect and systemic failure. We heard that up to half of older Australians in residential aged care are malnourished. Think about what that means: they are literally starving in a wealthy country like ours. We heard that the major quality and safety issues are inadequate prevention and management of wounds, sometimes leading to septicaemia and death; and aged-care residents often sitting or lying in urine or faeces.
Part of the answer to this crisis must lie in giving support to our aged-care workforce, those we trust to care for our most vulnerable—our parents, our grandparents and eventually ourselves. Even the selfish individualists opposite, one would have thought, would have an incentive to actually improve the system that one day they may well rely upon. We all have a direct interest in ensuring this—a self-interest, if you like. So, if not motivated by anything else, like care of anyone else, I would have thought that maybe this could jolt them into action. But I see that government members have removed themselves from the speaking list on this legislation—
An opposition member: Nothing to say.
because they have nothing to say about the real issues confronting this nation. The fact is that there are too few aged-care workers, and they are paid too little. They've begged the government to do something. Labor is listening. Our aged-care workers need proper pay and proper training.
The aged-care workforce must also be able to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate care. The day before I gave my fourth vision statement in Brisbane, on respecting and valuing older Australians, I visited the electorate of Oxley with its member and with the Shadow Treasurer. Milton, Jim and I had a terrific event with Vietnamese seniors in that community. One of the things that happens with multicultural communities is that often as people get older they lose their second language; they go back to the language of their birth. That's why these are the sorts of issues that require support and respect. One of the things about these communities—including the Vietnamese community, but it is certainly not alone—is the way they respect and revere their elders. With the way that we're handling the ageing of the population in this country, we're not doing that. This government certainly is not doing that.
Issues like staffing numbers, qualifications, skills mix and experience all affect the ability of aged-care workers to provide safe quality care, and we should have a workforce strategy to make sure that those issues are dealt with. One of the things that we will do, as a priority task for Jobs and Skills Australia, which we will establish if we are successful at the next election, is task them with this particular sector of delivering.
In spite of all of the crisis that's there, as outlined in the interim report, what was the response of this government? The response of the government was to try to privatise the one bit of the system that's working: the aged-care assessment teams. It put them out for profit, because there's a real profit to be made in that area. I mean, naturally, it fits with the market, going in and working out whether someone needs aged care and what level of care they need. It's just extraordinary! It was due to the pressure of the community, the unions involved in the sector, the shadow minister—I must say—and the work that we, on this side of the House, had unashamedly done in putting a focus on the ageing of the population that the government last week had to back down on its recommendations to privatise ACAT. It must now act on the royal commission recommendations. We need something much better than this legislation that does nothing to change the fundamentals there.
As I announced in Brisbane, we in contrast will develop a positive ageing strategy, outlining a plan to help Australians in their final years of paid work to build the nest egg that will let them retire when and how they want. That's one of the reasons we support increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. It's not about welfare; it's about giving people a quality of life at the same time as providing the nation with the national asset that superannuation represents. We want to make sure that when Australians do retire they have access to quality health care. We want to make sure that they have a roof over their head. We want to make sure they have access to quality aged care when the need arises.
There are a whole lot of creative areas that you could look at. I encourage people to have a look at the ABC show Old People's Home for 4 Year Olds. There are benefits from getting our very youngest people with our oldest people. They learn off each other and it lifts the health care. They had experts, nurses and doctors explain why the stimulation reduces heart disease and a whole range of health issues for those older Australians. This government is so complacent, obsessed with advertising and marketing and too busy downloading false documents, allegedly, from computers that it is not capable of actually addressing the big challenge.
Labor know that there is more we can and should be doing for older Australians. Our older years should be good years. We will continue to put forward constructive ideas to the government. If not supported, we will hold them to account. We will be presenting a positive vision for ageing to the nation in two years time, when the election is held.
Deputy Speaker Mitchell, I appreciate you giving a few moments for my colleagues to leave the chamber after listening to the significant contribution by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Grayndler, on Labor's thinking, optimism and positivity around what could and should be happening in this country in our aged-care sector and the care for our older Australians. I stand here very pleased to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for ageing and seniors to the second reading of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. We won't decline to give the bill a second reading, but we note the government's piecemeal approach to aged care. I stand here while my mum is at home. Hopefully, she is watching on the telly. Mum, g'day; how are you? She is 92. For me everything in the aged-care space is not only about the people I represent but also about the person closest to my heart besides my own children, and that is my mum. At 92 my mother is still independent. She still lives in her own unit and completely looks after herself, but she does have some home-care package support.
The government's approach to aged care and home-care packages in my time here has been absolutely piecemeal. I am struck today that we are here talking about legislation in this space while the royal commission is occurring. The royal commission has made an interim report and yet this legislation does not address any aspect of that interim report. Like when we were speaking on education yesterday, it again feels that, really, we are here talking about money bills and not actually talking about aged care. This legislation has scant implications for any kind of improvement in the aged-care system. I think that's a crying shame and that the government should be called out, and that's what we're standing here doing.
I note the legislation does a few things. The first phase is set to commence in June this year and will trigger a change to the way providers are paid. Rather than providers of home-care packages being paid upfront so people can access those funds and the care that comes with them, this legislation will mean that they will get paid in arrears. I note that this really means that money—and we're struggling to get an accurate figure, but we think between $250 million and $350 million—will not come out of government coffers and go to providers for aged care but would be held back until the new financial year.
I'm sorry if I sound cynical. I apologise to the House if my suspicious mind puts me in a different space from everybody else, but it seems pretty clear to me that this legislation, particularly the part of the legislation in front of us, is a budget saving measure by this government, given the other two factors in this legislation don't commence until 2021. There doesn't appear to be a rush to do those. But we're for standing here today because this government wants to save potentially $250 million to $350 million in this year's budget. This is about protecting an early crow on the surplus rather than protecting our elderly and ensuring that they're getting quality aged-care and quality home-care packages. I can't stress this enough. You only have to look at the facts.
I think that the number of Australians waiting for home-care packages is now out to 120,000 people. As we heard the member for Grayndler say so recently, we've gone from a one-month wait to a five-month wait to get into an aged-care facility, and we're now waiting up to three years for people to get to the level of the home-care package that they've been assessed for. We know that people are being encouraged by those opposite, 'If you can't get the higher levels just take the lower level and get yourself on the waiting list,' which is now out to three years. We know what the outcomes of this are. The outcomes are that people are dying before they get into aged care. The outcomes are that people are dying while waiting for home care packages. There is not an Australian, not one person in this country, who thinks that's okay except those opposite, who after six years still have no fix for this and who seem to be completely ignorant of their drip feeding of this information. They hold it back, waiting three months to tell us what the lists say now.
We know from the interim report of the royal commission that half of older Australians are malnourished. We know that the name of the interim report is 'Negligent'. We know that this government was planning to privatise the assessment processes for the aged care packages, what we call ACAT, the aged care assessment teams. They pulled back from that, but only because of pushback from states and a campaign run by the opposition around what that plan would actually mean. The campaign said, 'You want to privatise the one thing that's working while you ignore all the other problems in the system.' We know that this government has now had four ministers in six years and that all of those ministers have been responsible for billions of dollars of cuts in the sector. We're in the middle of a royal commission where some of the worst things are having a light shone on them. So they've been asleep at the wheel for six years—four different ministers, billions of dollars ripped out—and they have lurched from one crisis to another.
We're in the chamber today talking about a piece of legislation that contains a critical point that is a budget saving for this government, and we're doing this while in every question time we have 10 questions about coronavirus. Who is most susceptible to coronavirus? The elderly! So we're going to not put $250 million into the system, into home-care packages where people may be isolated and may be unaware that they're carrying the virus and what that means for them and their respiratory system. It is an absolute shame.
What does the holding back of these funds really mean? Let's have a look at it. Most Australians this will have very little impact from it. They'll be very aware that this is a budget measure. They'll be unaware of what is going on in this House today. But I'll tell you who will find out: it is people getting home-care packages in regional and remote areas, where the providers are most likely to be operating on the margins and are most likely to find themselves with an incredible cash shortfall that might mean they close their doors, which might mean that someone doesn't arrive to assist my mum next week. That's what might happen if we let this go through today. That's what we're up against. It is people in country areas, where the providers are most likely to be in this circumstance and may not take on new clients because of this cash shortfall that's going to be thrust upon them so quickly and with such little planning time, who will be affected. We've had that feedback from the peak bodies. So three years may become three years and three months. Who cares? It doesn't matter. The legislation in front of us today is an absolute indictment of this government.
We know that in January the aged-care royal commission had to issue an extraordinary public correction in response to the false assertion of the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians that they supported the plan to privatise aged-care assessments. This government should be in here apologising for their behaviour around the potential privatisation of ACAT. The minister actually claimed that the aged-care royal commissioners supported the privatisation of the ACAT system, a system that's working perfectly fine and that, in fact, the states say is working very well. In Senate question time in early February the minister admitted he hadn't even read the interim report of the royal commission. No wonder older Australians are suffering at the hands of this government, when they can't be bothered even reading the interim report from the royal commission, a royal commission that was called in response to television footage of things that were happening in some aged-care facilities that horrified and mortified Australians around the country.
I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but it seems to me that this government—if we do the compare and contrast and look at the sports grants fiasco—is very good at putting money out the door when it's for its own jobs, but, let's face it, now they're going to pull back money from home-care packages for elderly Australians in a piece of trickery—again, to save face. Let's get this clear, this is to save face. This is so that the Treasurer doesn't have to come in here and say they're not going to get a surplus. That's what this is about. It's absolutely disappointing. I will be absolutely ensuring that members in my community understand what this is about.
The providers are going to be put under pressure because of this piece of legislation and because of the rush of this piece of legislation. There are some things in this legislation that need to go through, the things that are set to happen from April 2021. Providers will only be paid the subsidy for the goods and services they actually provide to the consumer, rather than receiving the full monthly subsidy amount of the receipt. There are some areas there that may well have merit, but again we're doing this in the middle of a royal commission. We can't do anything about increasing the number of home-care packages, because we are in the middle of a royal commission. We can't do anything about the quality of our aged-care services, because we're in the middle of a royal commission. But there is this little thing that we could get through the parliament that would mean a budgetary save, or pushing down the road payments to providers of home-care packages into the next financial year. Although we don't want to hold up the bill going through the parliament, we have to get into this place and stand up one after the other to make sure that Australians understand what is going on here. We have to draw this to the House's attention, to ensure that those members opposite understand what it is they're going to walk in and vote for and understand what it is that they've put in front of this House today.
The change from advanced to arrears will commence in June 2020. It's an extraordinarily tight turnaround for service providers. There's an increase in financial risk for some smaller service providers, who may not have adequate cashflow to deal with the payment changes. There are some service providers who may have to revert to finding other financing arrangements, including loans or equity injections. Those home-care providers currently losing money will face significant difficulties changing over to an arrears payment arrangement. Service providers are also concerned whether the new payment arrangements increase administrative costs. Of course, we're all concerned about this, because we know that we have a waiting list of 120,000 people for aged-care packages and we've got many who are on home-care packages but are not on the appropriate levels and are waiting to go onto those appropriate levels. The ramifications of any strain we're putting onto the providers through this system are going to play out on elderly Australians who are still living in their homes and are dependent upon these services.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety is to hand down its final report in November. There will be an immense amount of change before the aged-care sector. Right now, in a critical area, the home care packages area, this legislation is asking for changes in their financial arrangements—not in their provision-of-care arrangements; not in reviewing to ensure that the people that they're employing are being remunerated appropriately for the work they're doing; and not in ensuring that, with the services they're providing, there is a feedback loop and that the people they're caring for are having their plans and their packages appropriately managed. This legislation is not about improving service to the elderly. This legislation is purely about funding. It's an absolute shame that, when we know that half of our elderly Australians in aged-care facilities are malnourished, we don't have figures on the nutritional state of people relying on home care packages. We don't have those figures, because those people are not in the facilities. But it seems to me, and it seems to my colleagues in this place, that this government could spend a lot more time focused on improving the care for our elderly Australians and a lot less time worrying about their bottom line and a lot less time juggling money around—and a lot more time focused on the things that Australians care about. They don't care about your surplus, but they do care about their mothers and their fathers.
There is nothing more important than older people having the security that they can be looked after in their later years. I see huge amounts of anxiety amongst them when they look ahead and wonder: 'Will I be able to afford the care that I need? Will my partner—my husband or my wife—afford the care that they need?' Children are concerned about it. I'm certainly in that category of people who have older parents. I have a mother turning 80 shortly and a father turning 90. It's certainly something that we as a family talk about. I can see how they respond when they see some of the stories coming out of the royal commission—the stories of neglect, of people not having sufficient food, and of the quality of that food. When I visit aged-care facilities, those conversations do take place with me. (Quorum formed) I'm very pleased to be able to speak on this and to support everything that the member for Grayndler and the member for Lalor said earlier.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No.1) Bill 2020. As the member for Franklin has pointed out, there are some serious concerns with this. The purpose of the bill is to change the payment of the home care subsidy to approved providers from being paid in advance to being paid in arrears. It will move payments for home care packages to the same model as the NDIS provider payment works. This could see increased risks to the financial viability of some service providers, especially for smaller rural and regional service providers who don't have adequate cashflow to deal with payment changes. I know there are lots of concerns in the NDIS sector that payments are often very late. I have one NDIS provider in my electorate who is still waiting on up to $270,000 in payments for invoices issued. Labor will move to have this bill referred to a Senate committee so that these issues can be worked through.
More broadly, as the member for Franklin has moved in her second reading amendment, this government is failing to provide the genuine, wholesale industry reform that the aged care sector so desperately needs. We have heard from many of the previous speakers that just last week the government was forced to backflip on a plan to privatise the aged care assessment teams. It was a plan that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. It was the only part of the aged care system which isn't broken. You have to ask yourself what the motivation was for wanting to privatise it in the first place. There were some serious suggestions that the government saw this as an opportunity to put downward pressure on home care package waiting lists, where we know that some 110,000 people currently sit and are waiting. It was an opportunity, some say, to actually move the assessment guidelines to make some people less eligible for packages or for higher packages et cetera. It would have seen 1,000 workers sacked from the ACAT teams. One thousand workers could have lost their jobs.
The states didn't want this plan. Embarrassingly for the minister, the states and territories pushed back. The New South Wales health minister himself said that it was ill-advised. The unions raised their voices and campaigned against this, knowing that it was bad for the aged care sector. I want to thank the unions who all worked so hard and campaigned against this. The community spoke out in their thousands about their concerns about seeing the ACAT privatised. The royal commission was forced, embarrassingly, into a position to deny that it recommended it, when the government tried to suggest that it did.
Whilst we're on the royal commission, the interim report from the commission was scathing in its criticism of government inaction on aged care, describing the industry as a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation. This is a third term government who constantly throw their hands in the air, seemingly baffled by the problems in aged care and unaware of the countless reports which provide solutions that are sitting still on the minister's desk.
One thing they could do right now is improve transparency and accountability of taxpayers' money. At every opportunity, this government shields dodgy aged-care providers from greater transparency and accountability of what they spend taxpayer funds on. Last year, Labor worked with the Senate crossbench to try to secure changes that would have driven accountability and transparency in the system, a vitally necessary reform. The amendments would have forced providers to publicly confirm how tax dollars are spent—how much money goes to the cost of care, such as food and food supplements, continence aids, staff, mobility aids et cetera. This information is vital for families and residents who are making one of the hardest decisions of their lives, where to entrust the care of their loved ones.
Aged-care facilities receive 70 to 80 per cent of their funding from the taxpayer, yet for so many of them there is very little information on how this money is spent, especially in the for-profit sector. Time and time again in the royal commission hearings we've heard stories from families and loved ones about being kept in the dark, a total lack of transparency and vital information that could give families assurances about the safety and wellbeing of their elderly family members. The interim report of the royal commission makes particular note of the lack of fundamental transparency across the sector. Did the government do anything about this? No. Without accountability and transparency, there is a risk that any new funding will not drive what the community is desperate for—quality care.
Just this week, we heard of yet another aged-care facility failing every industry standard. Tenison residential aged care was found by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to pose 'an immediate and severe risk to the safety' of patients. The facility at Swansea is run by Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT). It is a not-for-profit provider. Residents there were sleeping on towels and were left in soiled continence pads. The commission reported that the care provision did not maintain consumer dignity regarding continence, that there was a serious lack of resources and the facility did not have effective systems to respond to abuse and neglect of its residents. Distressingly, the report said there continues to be a reliance on chemical restraint, often in the absence of informed consent. This facility, as I said, is a not-for-profit facility. It received $1.5 million in government subsidies for 32 aged-care places in 2019. That's $47,000 per resident. We know this, and I know that there are going to be questions asked about the viability of some of our facilities, but we know this because, as a not-for-profit, it does actually present us, the community, with an annual report where it states where its money is spent. But we know that for many, particularly the for-profits, it is not declared so clearly. Without tighter accountability, we can't ensure that providers, especially for-profit providers, will simply not siphon off vital dollars to go elsewhere—the Cayman Islands maybe, or just to excessively line their pockets.
Many aged-care facilities do the right thing—I know that—on both sides, for-profit and the not-for-profit sector. I have great providers in my electorate whom I visit often, and they do their very, very best to provide quality care. I want to give a call out to all of the sector who do the best they can, to the workers who care so beautifully for the elderly with really limited resources. But the government and the people deserve to know where taxpayers' funds are spent.
The government has to get this right and ensure that aged-care funding is adequate to meet the needs of our ageing population and that it is linked to care. The Leader of the Opposition made the very pertinent point that it is in all of our interests to make sure we get this right. That means proper residential care, home care packages and adequate funding for rural and residential aged-care facilities, who are a special case—because of the challenges of remoteness they struggle to stay afloat.
The other key issue this government refuses to tackle is workforce. At a recent hearing at the royal commission focused on workforce, Counsel Assisting Peter Rozen QC slammed the Morrison government's inaction in fixing Australia's broken system, declaring that it's 'time to stop kicking the can down the road'. Counsel assisting made recommendations for the commission to consider for its final report on workforce issues, including minimum staffing numbers, appropriate skill mix, better pay, and better training and conditions for the aged-care workforce. The commission also heard recommendations that would increase the transparency and accountability of aged-care funding, making providers publish staffing numbers and skills mix. Counsel said 'the time is now' for real action, criticising the government for ignoring previous reports and recommendations handed to them as blueprints to fix the workforce issues.
These issues have been the subject of numerous inquiries and recommendations over the last two decades. Peter Rozen QC drew specific attention to John Pollaers's aged-care workforce strategy, which was delivered to the government more than a year ago. In evidence to the royal commission, Professor Pollaers considered the government's inaction in implementing the workforce strategy as 'profoundly disappointing'. The royal commission's interim report said:
Workloads are heavy. Pay and conditions are poor, signalling that working in aged care is not a valued occupation. Innovation is stymied. Education and training are patchy and there is no defined career path for staff. Leadership is lacking. Major change is necessary to deliver the certainty and working environment that staff need to deliver great quality care.
Labor has been saying for a long time that fixing the workforce issues that plague the aged-care system is crucial to delivering quality care in aged-care facilities. In Anthony Albanese's vision statement on ageing, he declared:
Part of the answer to this crisis must lie in our aged care workforce. Those we trust to care for our most vulnerable, our parents, our grandparents, eventually ourselves.
There are too few aged-care workers, and they are paid too little. They have begged the Government to do something.
Labor is listening.
Our aged care workers need proper pay and proper training.
The aged care workforce must also be able to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate care.
Staffing numbers, qualifications, skills mix and experience, all affect the ability of aged care workers to provide safe, quality care.
Under a Labor Government, solving this will be one of the priority tasks for Jobs and Skills Australia.
The impetus to get this right is huge and is something which the wonderful aged-care unions have been raising for years. In order to meet ever-increasing demand for aged-care services and support, the workforce will need to more than triple by 2050. By 2050 we will need to have more than one million Australians working in aged care. This represents a workforce growth rate of about two per cent annually to meet future demand. We must have a quality workforce which sees aged-care workers getting the respect and dignity they deserve.
Aged care is not babysitting. It is not a lifestyle choice. As a nurse, I know that elderly residents have complex health needs, like dementia, that require very specifically well-skilled workers. I want to say a big thank you to all the incredibly hardworking nurses and carers, many of whom must also look after young people in nursing homes. A tragedy of monumental proportions, this is as also mentioned by the royal commission. This government has thrown a few dollars into this issue—a bandaid, really—which will go nowhere in addressing the independent housing needs of these young people.
I will never forget the time when former Prime Minister Turnbull said that aged-care workers could always aspire to 'a better job'. I was livid. I leapt to my feet in this place to defend those workers and their unions. Their aspirations are to be able to give better care to the elderly, the people whose lives have been entrusted to them. They hope for better staffing, better resources and better pay, but not one of the people working in that sector has ever come to me and said they want 'a better job'. They love their jobs. They are dedicated. They get intrinsic rewards from ensuring dignity and quality of life. They aspire to make their residents' lives as comfortable and meaningful as possible and they aspire to ensure that their residents have, at the end of their lives, a dignified death. That is the type of aspiration that the then member for Wentworth and his colleagues perhaps did not understand.
I know what funding cuts mean. I know what it's like to be a carer or a nurse and not be able to deliver the care that you want to because there aren't the resources allowing you to do your job, because there's limited access to training and skills acquisition, and because the workloads are impossible. I know what it's like to try to feed four or five patients at once, or to have to decide between doing a wound dressing or taking a resident for a much-needed walk as physiotherapy. It's heartbreaking to have to make those decisions every day.
Finally, last year one of my constituents, Lily Coy, was interviewed by Channel Nine, recounting an experience that hundreds of thousands of older Australians have experienced. She said that she found herself begging for a home care package. She wasn't coping. She couldn't walk from the table to the sink. She was having to demand the assistance she was entitled to—having to beg for the assistance she was entitled to. She said it was humiliating. She said:
We're not bits of paper. We're not numbers on a bit of paper.
Lily said she feels awful thinking about others who are still waiting for home care packages. She said:
It makes me feel so guilty and sad.
The government's announcement this week of 10,000 home care packages means there are still 110,000 older Australians assessed and waiting for theirs. Older Australians and their families remain frustrated, confused and let down by this government, which is so clearly out of touch. It has no idea of what it means to be hoping for help with an older loved one. It has no idea what it means to watch an elderly parent wait in vain for assistance at home. It seems to have no idea or care what it means for a family to struggle to provide that care themselves, juggling rosters at work, juggling care of their own children who need their care and attention. Families take risks, ultimately, because sometimes it just doesn't work out the way you want it to. You worry desperately because you can't get home in time, because an elderly loved one is home all alone for just that bit too long. The crisis is getting worse. It seems the government has no idea what it means to watch an elderly patient wait in vain for help. I'm not going to stand here and tell you the solution is simple. It isn't. (Time expired)
(Quorum formed)
I too rise today to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. I've been listening to all the speeches that have been taking place here and I hear the concerns of a lot of members about our elderly citizens. I've said it many times in here: these are the people who have built our foundations and paid their taxes, and some have fought in wars to give us the opportunities that we have today to live in a free, democratic country. It's a place that still has opportunity and is a country that is sought after by everyone in the world. They want to come and live here because of the foundations that have been put in place by the generations before us. That's why it's important to ensure that, as governments, we do whatever the right thing is in ensuring that our elderly Australians are looked after.
I've got to say that there are many things that are currently not working in the system. As I heard the Leader of the Opposition say earlier, in some communities—in fact, in most communities—elderly people are revered. In the Vietnamese community, many Asian communities and even a lot of European communities, they are revered and respected. It is unheard of for many people in these ethnic groups that they would put their parents or grandparents in aged-care facilities or have others looking after them. They feel that it is their duty. It is important that we do look after them, whether or not we do it ourselves. Obviously in a country like Australia, where everyone works and we're struggling with balancing family, kids et cetera, we do find ourselves in a position where sometimes our elderly Australians have to be looked after by someone else, whether it be in a facility that cares for older people or in home care.
That takes me to the home care packages that have had bungle upon bungle continuously whilst this government has been in place. They've had over six years—we're in the third term of government—to sort this out. We hear that there are still over 100,000 people waiting for aged care packages to look after people in their homes. They are people who are needy, people who need a little bit of support. After all, they supported us for generations. The least that we can do is give them that little bit of help that gives them a bit of dignity in their life.
You've got a list of over 100,000 people waiting who, in fact, have been assessed. They have been assessed and given the okay for the package and then they have to wait to receive the package. We've heard stories of over two years and up to three years of waiting. In fact, from some figures that came out, in the last few years some 30,000 people who had been approved and had been waiting for packages had died. It's not uncommon in my electorate office to have people come to see me and say: 'Remember when we applied for this particular package and we got the okay from the ACAT assessment? We waited and waited.' They'd been in to see me again and, in that period, those people had passed away or deteriorated. That is unacceptable. It is totally unacceptable that people are waiting for such a long period to receive a bit of help and a bit of care. It's also unacceptable that we, as a government, are not doing anything about it. As a government, we're just sitting back and shrugging our shoulders. Measures have to be put in place to make sure that we shorten that list, that people get that care in the appropriate period of time that ensures their health doesn't deteriorate.
What happens is, when you apply for a package, usually it's at the point when you're deteriorating—perhaps a lot of families haven't thought about it; it's at the last minute—and then you're waiting for a few months to get the assessment. Once the assessment takes place, then you're ticked off as basically a yes or no, and then the period of waiting starts—of waiting to have that package put in place. If you don't get that package in a timely manner, your health will deteriorate at a much faster pace than if you had someone caring for you. This means that a lot of people are ending up in nursing homes or aged care facilities needlessly, costing the government many more dollars than they would have if they had been kept at home with the care that was required.
We need to ensure that people get the care that they require within their homes. Most people want to stay within their homes. There are a few that do want to go into residential aged care facilities, but the majority of people I talk to in my electorate say they want their loved ones to remain at home with a bit of assistance and a bit of care. It is totally inacceptable that 30,000 people died waiting to receive an aged care package for assistance at home.
When we look at this government and see what they have put in place, not much is there. Not much is happening. Their biggest item for older Australians had been to try and privatise the ACAT, being the most profitable side of aged care services. That is wrong. It is a government that has at its focus the privatisation of services. For example, when you look at Medicare, we know that many attempts have been made to chip away at the sides and to cut away and gradually privatise any service that provides a service for the public good. ACAT is a service for the public good and should not be privatised. I'm pleased that through the campaigning that was done on this side of the House we were able to prevent that and ensure that it doesn't get privatised. It is a special service, which provides the checks and balances to make sure that people are eligible for aged care packages or facilities.
That takes me to another area. In the royal commission we heard many horrendous stories. First we saw them on TV and reported in the media—people being undernourished; people not receiving the care that they required; everything from abuse to criminal acts that were visited on these people. What a horrendous thing, to think that it could be your grandparents or your parents in that situation when you're handing them over with the trust that the facility will do their best to look after a loved one, and then to discover that they are being abused or malnourished or they are not having the care that is required.
It took a lot of work and a lot of effort in this place to commit the government to a royal commission. We all remember that day when they finally did, when they realised they didn't have the numbers to gazump it. The Prime Minister came into this House and announced it. The horror stories that came out were horrendous. The Morrison government has to act on any findings that the royal commission comes out with. It is extremely important that they not only act on it, but ensure that they put in the legislation that's required to check, safeguard and ensure that our elderly have the services that are required for their old age.
Waiting times for a bed in a facility have blown out as well. They were around two to three weeks. They are now far greater. Usually when a family comes to our office seeking some sort of assistance because they can't find a bed, it is at crisis point. It is usually at a point where something's gone wrong. Their elderly mum or dad has had a fall, has broken their hip or leg or has some other ailment or illness, and has been taken to hospital, and it has been deemed that they cannot care for themselves back home. So there's a mad rush to try and work out where they will be able to take them into a facility that they trust and feel comfortable with; with the added burden of having to wait weeks and weeks to find a bed. In that period, those people stay in hospital, again costing state governments and the federal government millions of dollars more.
What they require in these facilities is quality health care, and, as I said, we're only going to get that through this government responding to and acting on the report of the royal commission that's taken place. It's no good coming in here and just make statements about the feel-good things, as we've seen this Prime Minister do more and more, and continuously, where marketing is the tool but there is no action. We need action on the royal commission's findings. We need this government to perform. But this is not like any other important area. This is important because it is about human beings that are our mothers, our fathers, our grandparents, our great-grandparents, and all of us want to know and have confidence that, when they are in a facility, they are being looked after. We need to ensure that the right work skills are there.
We heard the previous speaker, the member for Cooper, talk about the understaffing in a lot of these facilities, with stories of 30- or 40-bed facilities with only one care worker on the nightshift. All it takes is one emergency, and everyone else is left on the side and not cared for until that emergency's dealt with. That is something that came out of the royal commission, the staffing levels, as well as the pressure that's on those aged-care workers and, certainly, the work skills that are needed.
We need to train more people up. We need to ensure the training facilities that we have are up to scratch. We need to ensure that the people that go into this industry do it because they love the industry, but they also need to be remunerated correctly and properly. They need to be given a sense of dignity, as do the workers who look after our elderly, and the people that have looked after us our entire lives.
The No. 1 most important thing is for this government to act on the royal commission findings. No. 2 is to deal with the long waiting list, with over 100,000 Australians waiting for aged-care home packages—many dying whilst they are waiting—which is unacceptable. No. 3 is to ensure that our facilities are up to scratch and that checks and balances are put in place. I know that the government have moved on this. I commend them for it. But it's no good just putting legislation in place and having some form of institution that is a toothless tiger. We need to act upon these things. We need to be vigilant. We need to ensure that the Australian public have confidence that, when they are putting their loved ones into a facility or having outside people caring for them, the right thing is being done.
As I've said many times in this place—I don't think there's any other line that I've said more often, and I'm about to say it again—these are the people that have given us the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of this wonderful country. Through their foresight, through building the foundations of this nation and through their hard work, and their taxes through that hard work, and through many of them fighting in wars, they have ensured that the next generation of Australians—that's us—benefit from this nation. We need to give them a sense of dignity and happiness in their twilight years, and we want them to be comfortable and to know that their loved ones are doing the best for them—and that their government is doing the best for them. I cannot stress that enough. We may talk about a million other policies in this place, but we will be judged in the future on the way that we looked after our elderly. After all, they are human beings and the people who, as I said, have given their whole life for their children, for their grandchildren, and, in many cases, have brought up not only their children but also their grandchildren.
I hope the government take something away from the royal commission report, I hope that they act on the royal commission findings and I really hope that, in this place, there is more focus on this policy area than there has been in the last few years.
(Quorum formed)
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 and support the amendment by the member for Franklin. The purpose of this bill is to change the payment of home-care subsidy to approved providers from being paid in advance to being paid in arrears. This change is to commence in June of this year. The report from the Aged Care Financing Authority highlighted that this is the first phase of reform for home-care payment arrangements. Phase 2 and 3 are set to commence in April 2021, and are to ensure that the provider is only paid for the service they provide and that subsidy payments to providers would be reduced to a currently unknown portion of the unspent package funds held by the provider for that recipient.
As previous speakers have noted, while we will not oppose this bill we do have some concerns on its impact. The June 2020 time frame for shifting from advanced to arrears payments increases the risk to some smaller providers, who may not have adequate cashflow to cope with this change. As a result, these providers, some of whom will be in regional and remote areas, may be reluctant to take on new clients or be forced to reduce services to existing clients. In all their talk about service providers and consumers, the government seem to have lost sight of the people, of the older Australians, their loved ones and their carers, and their hopes to remain safely in their own homes.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety will hand down its final report in November. It's interim report made unprecedented recommendations which this government should be acting on now. But what is the government doing? Instead of acting on the recommendations of the commissioners, it's making piecemeal changes which appear to be designed to just save some money or shifts costs. Like the proposal from the government to privatise the assessment of aged-care services, a change described as illogical by the New South Wales Liberal health minister, Brad Hazzard. The government said there were no plans to privatise ACAT, yet there was a tender process scheduled to take place in April 2021. If there were no plans to privatise ACAT, why have a tender process? I'm relieved the government finally came to its senses and withdrew the tender process, following strong opposition from the community, from the unions, from state health ministers, from Labor and from the sector.
It does make you question this government's priorities when, instead of acting on the commissioner's recommendations, it tries to fix the one part of the sector that isn't subject to adverse findings by the commission. The interim report of the royal commission handed down in October last year, a report titled Neglect, put forward three recommendations that required urgent action: first, to ensure older Australians are getting the care at home when they need it most; second, to end the overreliance on chemical restraints in aged care; and, thirdly, to stop the unacceptable number of young people entering residential aged care. The government's response to the interim report has been woefully inadequate, especially in relation to home care packages. The commissioner recommended urgent action to address the home care package waiting list. What has this government done in response? It released 5,000 home care packages before Christmas—5,000 home care packages when there are over 120,000 older Australians waiting for their approved home care package. Labor has consistently highlighted the serious consequences of delays in home care packages to the person, to their family and carers and to our community. The average waiting time for a home care package is five months, with many people, particularly those waiting for high-level packages, waiting for over a year. Sadly, we learnt that 30,000 older Australians have died while waiting for home care and that 25,000 older Australians have ended up in residential care sooner than they needed to. Everyone has been saddened by the aged-care quality and safety report—three volumes, titled Neglectthat sines a light on the state of aged care in this country.
The government must bear some responsibility for this crisis. It was the current Prime Minister who, as Treasurer, took around $1.2 billion from aged-care funding. And how has the government responded to the findings of the commission? By providing $500 million for an additional 10,000 home care packages, of which, as I mentioned, only 5,000 were available before Christmas last year. This doesn't even amount to half of what the Prime Minister cut from aged-care funding during his time as Treasurer. For many, the truth is that these packages are too few and too late, and they don't address the underlying systemic problems plaguing the aged-care system in Australia today. As I mentioned, there are currently over 120,000 Australians on waiting lists for home care packages that they have been approved for—people who have been referred by their GP, who've had an ACAT assessment and who need help and need it now. They are on waiting lists under this government.
On the Central Coast there are over 1,333 older Australians waiting for home care packages right now. These are people like Noel of Long Jetty. Noel was approved for a level 2 package six months ago, a package which would help him to stay safely and independently in his home. But he's still waiting, like so many hundreds of thousands of others. So he's paying out-of-pocket for the services that he needs to stay safely at home. As an age pensioner, this is something that he can't afford. Noel and his circumstances are not an isolated example. According to the 2016 Census, almost one in five people in my electorate of Dobell are aged over 65. This is higher than both the state and national average, yet there hasn't been a hearing of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety held on the Central Coast. I note that on 27 November last year there was a hearing held in Newcastle. People in my electorate, and across the Central Coast, deserve the opportunity to share their stories and to share their experiences close to home, independent of the experiences of people living in other parts of Australia.
In November last year, I hosted an aged-care forum in my electorate on the New South Wales Central Coast, along with the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party. We heard from families, carers, support workers and providers about the challenges and difficulties they have experienced. People spoke often of the difficulties they've had dealing with My Aged Care. My Aged Care is the telephone and internet based national aged-care system which is often a person's first point of contact with aged-care services—a system called by the commissioner 'frightening, confronting and confusing.' So how do people access home care packages or find out about residential aged care? How do they arrange their assessment with an ACAT team? Through a portal that many, particularly in their 80s and 90s, find frightening, confronting, and confusing. Maybe the government could start by addressing My Aged Care.
As a pharmacist, I'd like to turn to the disturbing use of chemical restraint that was exposed in the interim report. The report found:
widespread overprescribing, often without clear consent, of drugs which sedate residents, rendering them drowsy and unresponsive to visiting family and removing their ability to interact with people.
Over 33 per cent of the online submissions to the commission raised issues about medication management, and research presented a survey of 11,368 residents across 139 facilities that found 61 per cent of residents were administered psychotropic agents. Psychotropic medications affect the mind, emotions and behaviour of a person. They're medications that should be used according to clinical guidelines and with informed consent.
As part of its response to the report, the government announced $25.5 million to improve medication management and $10 million for additional dementia training for aged-care providers to reduce chemical restraint. The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, the PSA, in their submission to the commission when referring to the use of psychotropic medicines said, 'level of inappropriate use in aged care generally required review and action.'
On 26 February, the PSA released its Medicine safety: Aged care report. The report found over 95 per cent of people living in aged-care facilities have at least one problem with their medicines, detected at the time of the medicine's review. Most have three problems. It found that 50 per cent of people with dementia are taking medicines with anticholinergic properties, which can worsen confusion and other symptoms of dementia. One-fifth of people living in aged care are on antipsychotics, and more than half use the medicine for too long.
The Society of Hospital Pharmacists released a public statement following the announcement which noted:
the fact remains most aged care facilities do not have a pharmacist on staff, despite research consistently finding beneficial outcomes from the provision of clinical pharmacy services.
While funding for medication management training is welcome, these figures once again show the government not properly addressing the problem or the recommendations of the interim report.
The royal commission recommended urgent action to stop the flow of younger people with a disability going into aged care and to speed up the process of getting those young people, who are already in aged care, out. The royal commission heard evidence that there are some 6,000 people under the age of 65 living in aged-care facilities. It's just not right that people in their 30s, 40s and 50s should be living in aged-care facilities. I call on the government to act urgently on this recommendation.
The bill updates the payment structures for home care providers, but what is the point if people can't access home care packages when they need them? What is the point if people don't understand how the find a provider online and if the process of finding and researching the right package needs support, which many older people sadly don't have or isn't available to them? What is the point if there is no provider in that area, so they can't stay close to home, be close to friends and family and the community they know and have lived in.
This bill makes changes to the payment arrangements for providers, but what older Australians and their families need is aged care they can trust, where they have confidence that their loved ones are safe and well-cared for. The interim report made recommendations which the government must act on now to stop the neglect of older Australians. Changing the payment arrangements may help the government's bottom line but won't improve the quality of care for older Australians.
I come to this House as a pharmacist, as someone who worked in mental health for much of my life and at our local hospital for 10 years before I came into this place but also as the daughter and the granddaughter of someone who lived with dementia. I made a promise to my mum that I would do everything that I could to make sure that people who care for others will be better supported, and this is what I intend to do. It is something that is important to everybody: everybody should have confidence that they can trust that the person that they love will be cared for, will receive a quality and standard of care that they would hope to receive for their parent or their grandparent or, in future, themselves.
This is urgent. The government must act now. There are unprecedented recommendations from the commissioners in the interim report, and the government must act on them with urgency to make sure that older Australians are treated with dignity, respect and have care that they can trust.
(Quorum formed)
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. In the limited time that I have, I also want to focus on the important second reading amendment that the shadow minister has moved regarding this critical issue for Australia. I know that all members of the House have been hearing the horrific stories of neglect and abuse. This is not confined to a partisan issue—to a Labor or Liberal issue. It is an issue affecting every single Australian. Quite frankly, that's why I am disappointed that the government have stopped speaking on this issue; that the government have given up either defending their poor record or wanting to put on record in this place the dire set of circumstances that we're seeing for aged care in this country.
Maybe the facts are too strong for the government, so they are either pretending they don't exist or they are in denial about how the aged-care sector is in crisis in this country. We know there are more than 100,000 Australians waiting for their approved care package. Sadly, 30,000 older Australians died over the past two years waiting for their approved home care package. It is just not good enough in a country like Australia to have that statistic. And I am shocked that not one member of the government will get up in the remainder of the debate today and actually talk about this issue. They may have their own reasons for doing that, but I think every single member of the government should be on their feet, discussing this issue and explaining what their plan is to deal with the aged-care crisis in this country, rather than just hoping that it will go away—hoping that some magic will happen to fix their neglect and their lack of funding to deal with the aged-care crisis in this country.
Wait times have blown out. People are dying on the list. The median wait time for older Australians going to residential aged care has grown by more than 100 days under the Liberals and Nationals—from just over a month to a five-month wait. What is the excuse for this? What is the justification for this? The silence from those opposite says it all.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour.
I bring to the attention of the House the very important issue of community television in Australia, which is under threat of being booted off the air on 30 June this year unless the minister decides against pulling the plug. At a time when Australia has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, community TV provides diversity. At a time when newsrooms are closing, community TV supports local news and is a training ground for budding journalists, presenters and screen producers in partnership with universities. At a time when social cohesion and creative industries should be promoted, community TV provides a platform for local, multicultural, sporting and arts events. Yet the government wants to push community TV off air to an online-only model of delivery. But neither the broadcasters nor the audiences nor their sponsors are ready to make the move.
Community TV broadcasters are not asking for government funding. They need time and they need access to the broadcast spectrum they now occupy, for which there is currently no alternative use. The radiofrequency spectrum is a valuable public resource. It should not go unused when Channel 31 Melbourne and Channel 44 Adelaide could make such good use of it. I call on the minister to extend the broadcast licences for Channel 31 Melbourne and Channel 44 Adelaide so they can remain on air and continue doing the great job they do servicing their communities.
Our priority is to keep Australians safe. Thanks to the early actions taken by the Morrison government to prepare Australia and get ahead, we're in the best possible position to limit the spread of coronavirus. The expert medical advice from the Chief Medical Officer has us well equipped. Our community is not immune to the spread of the virus, but people in my electorate of Lindsay can be assured that we have acted early and with a strategic plan. There is no need to stockpile medical or household items or to change your daily routine. Our community has wonderful cafes, restaurants and the beautiful Nepean River, and I encourage everyone to continue to enjoy these.
CSIRO's world-class researchers are currently developing a vaccine, which is now in the testing phase. Australia is leading the way to have a vaccine ready as fast as possible. The situation is evolving daily, and we are working hard to keep Australians safe, but there are things we can all do. I would encourage everyone to practice good hygiene, particularly hand washing, and people should monitor for symptoms such as fever, coughing, shortness of breath and tiredness. If you're unwell or are concerned that you may have been exposed you should self-isolate and call your GP for advice. I urge our community to only consult official sources of information. You can contact the national coronavirus help information line 24 hours a day, seven days a week on 1800020080, or visit the official website at health.gov.au for the most up-to-date information. (Time expired)
It's been almost two years since Priya, Nades, Kopika and Tharunicaa were removed from their home in Biloela, almost two years of locking up two defenceless little girls. This family was dragged in the middle of the night to the Christmas Island detention centre. This year, Kopika will be turning five and her little sister Tharunicaa will be turning three. They are young girls who are being robbed of a childhood. Surely we can be big enough to accept that they should be brought home to Australia. Surely we can be big enough to accept that we are wasting millions of taxpayers dollars on a family that poses no risk to anyone. Surely at a time like this, when businesses and the economy are struggling, the government should be using every inch of the budget to help Australian businesses, and not on this expensive and cool exercise.
We all remember that after the medevac bill the Prime Minister launched a fear campaign and budgeted $185 million to open the Christmas Island detention centre. But locking up a family like this is un-Australian. It goes against the Australian value of looking after one another, especially children. It's time to stop wasting billions of dollars and it's time to bring this family back to Biloela where they belong. This family was contributing to a regional town. These people were doing good work inside the Australian community. These kids have known only detention. It's time to bring this family home.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, along with the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure, wrote to state premiers and infrastructure ministers to bring forward more projects in the interests of our economy given the challenges that have beset our nation over the last six months. I endorse those calls very strongly and I take the opportunity to remind the Queensland state government of Commonwealth funding that has already been secured for two specific road projects in our electorate of Groom. Funding for the much-needed upgrade to the Brimblecombe Road-Warrego Highway intersection between Kingsthorpe and Oakey was committed by the Commonwealth last year. This has been the site of numerous accidents, including a tragic double fatality in late 2018. Protected turning lanes are needed urgently.
The Commonwealth also committed funding last year to upgrade the entry to Borneo Barracks on the New England Highway at Cabarlah, home of the army's deployable electronic warfare unit. Works are needed to improve safe entry and exit of oversized military vehicles or protected mobility vehicles, which are slower and heavier than civilian traffic, particularly in a part of the world where there is often fog and very heavy traffic in the mornings and afternoons.
The Queensland state government simply needs to get on with the job with these projects. Funding was committed well over 12 months ago.
We need to talk about sport. The event to be at yesterday in Canberra wasn't estimates. It wasn't question time—is it ever? It was the Palace last night to watch the University of Canberra Capitals take on the Southside Flyers in the WNBL grand final decider. They are two amazing sides who have been great across the whole season. Despite being down by 15 points at one point, the UC Caps came through to win back-to-back titles before a packed AIS Arena—the ninth title for this storied team in a competition that is world class and deserves greater support and recognition here at home.
Co-captains Kelsey Griffin and Mariana Tolo are such amazing pillars of this team. League MVP Kia Nurse, finals MVP Olivia Epoupa, Maddy Rocci, Keely Froling, Abby Cubillo, Alex Delaney, Gemma Potter, Lily Scanlon, Shakera Reilly, Kristy Wallace: you are such amazing role models for young women and athletes right around the country and an inspiration to players who will be out on the courts this weekend, hoping that they can follow in your footsteps.
Coaches Paul Goriss, Kristen Veal, Carly Wilson and Jenny Lonergan; Lucille Bailey and the rest of the amazing UC Capitals team; the sponsors that got behind this great team, UC, ActewAGL, BentSpoke: you have done the whole capital region proud, and we will be there seeing you again.
I refer to the Prime Minister 's statement on domestic and family violence last week in response to recent tragic events. I take this opportunity to advocate for additional resources and funding on behalf of the Patricia Giles Centre, which operates in the northern suburbs of Perth, particularly within my electorate, providing a range of support services to assist victims of family and domestic violence in our community. Both capital and operational funding are required to support the work of the Patricia Giles Centre as part of the federal budget.
The centre provides safe accommodation, housing support, counselling, a crisis response service, group programs and Newstart kits for women and children escaping family violence and abuse. During the 2018-19 year, the Patricia Giles centre assisted 1,423 clients, with 213 women and 499 children admitted to refuges.
Australian police deal with domestic violence every two minutes. Violence against women is estimated to cost the Australian economy $22 billion a year. I make a strong case based on merit for federal funding to be allocated as part of the upcoming federal budget process to support the local work of the Patricia Giles Centre and to support victims of domestic and family violence nationally.
I rise today to speak about a wonderful event that's taking place within the federal electorate of Hindmarsh. It is Adelaide's spectacular annual four-day festival of music, arts and dance that celebrates cultural and creative diversity: WOMADelaide. It had been held since 1992 in the beautiful Botanic Park in Adelaide's CBD. I encourage any member who is in Adelaide on the weekend to visit this wonderful festival.
Each year WOMAD shines the national spotlight on South Australia's cultural and creative riches. It attracts locals from every corner of our state, visitors from across the nation and, really importantly, visitors from all over the world. They will converge on Adelaide this weekend. It generates tourism and money for the economy. It has contributed immensely to the flourishing artistic creativity of our state. It has provided artists with opportunities to perform.
This wonderful summer festival showcases a plethora of artistic performances annually and has increasingly gained worldwide recognition in recent years. It has been referred to as a world-class festival. It is renowned around the world. The performers this year include living legend, civil rights icon, Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Grammy Award winner Mavis Staples. We should be supporting festivals like this that put money back into the economy, entertain us and give us a flourishing arts community.
Never before has the Sunshine Coast been the recipient of so much federal government funding. This year alone we will see the completion of the six-laning of the Bruce Highway between the Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway; we will see the completion of a new runway, giving way to a fully-fledged international airport in Maroochydore; we will see the start of the Maroochydore Road and Mons Road interchange upgrades; and we will see the start of the Beerburrum to Nambour rail upgrades.
But it's not just the big stuff; it's also getting the small infrastructure right. I was delighted last week to announce two black spot projects from this federal government. One of them is for Lindsay Road in Buderim from the Tulip Lane intersection all the way down to Jones Road. The other one is the Petrie Creek Road in Rosemount from the Plantation Retirement Resort through to Paynter Creek. This isn't just about roads; this is about keeping people safe. This is about making sure that our community can get home and spend more time with the kids. These black spot areas are accident zones. We have had deaths, we've had people losing their loved ones. We keep the economy strong so that we can make these investments to get people home sooner and get them home safer. That's what it's all about.
Today I rise in the House to speak about a community-run, not-for-profit group close to my heart and right in the heart of Indi. The Mansfield Musical and Dramatic Society, or MMuDS as it's affectionately known, recently swept the Georgy Awards. I'm pleased to recognise it today. MMuDS began in 1983 with the aim of fostering, promoting and facilitating theatrical and musical activities within Mansfield and surrounding towns. MMuDS has already produced over 50 plays.
The Georgy Awards have been held annually in the Goulburn Valley area since 1973 and recognise theatrical excellence. MMuDS was recognised in nine categories at the 2020 awards ceremony, including best play for Blackadder Goes Forth, best director, best male lead, best supporting actor, best set design, best lighting design, excellence in costume design, best female performance, and best dance number for Seussical the musical.
I had the pleasure of seeing Seussical last year. I was impressed by the energy and professionalism of everyone involved. What a wonder community theatre is. I agree entirely with Dr Seuss when he wrote: 'Oh the thinks you can think up if only you try.' I'm looking forward to catching another play very soon. Until then, congratulations to the president Michael Isbister, cast and crew.
We're being hamstrung by our Queensland state government. They're dragging their feet when it comes to getting infrastructure projects off the ground. The federal government has stepped up with the funding, but the state government has gone walkabout. The outstanding projects in Queensland in Flynn are: $511,000 for the black spot on Kirkwood Road; $405,000 for the black spot on the Theodore Moura Road; $40 million for the Springsure-Tambo road; $20 million for the John Peterson Bridge; $700,000 for the Gayndah Mount Perry Road; $700,000 for the Rosedale Road and Winfield Road intersection; $20 million for the Phillip Street bypass; $3.5 billion for a water feasibility study for North and South Burnett; and of course Rookwood Weir, which we could talk about. I call the state to action.
I rise to speak about the wonderful women's cricket team, who are in the T20 World Cup semi-final tonight. Of course we hope our team makes the final this Sunday at the MCG in Melbourne, where Australia is hoping to break the world record for the largest crowd ever at a sporting event for women for International Women's Day. This would be a wonderful sign of our country's March towards gender equality, but it will also be fantastic to have Katy Perry performing at this event. In honour of Katy's performance and that of our wonderful women's T20 cricket team, it'd be great to see them inspiring young boys and girls across the country to be professional cricketers.
As I said, the final of the Women's T20 World Cup wasn't 'Last Friday Night'; it's this Sunday 8 March. We're hoping to break the record for the largest crowd at a sporting event for women, which would be 'original' and 'cannot be replaced'. So if you're in Melbourne on Sunday, buy a ticket so this record isn't 'The One That Got Away'. Our women's T20 cricket team has definitely been more 'hot' than 'cold' in this World Cup. They aren't a 'Dark Horse'; they're ranked number one in the world and are in the semi-final tonight. In the last match that helped them get there, we saw Georgia Wareham take three wickets in a performance that went off like a 'Firework'. I'm sure for all the young cricketers, boys and girls, around the country, our team's amazing success is inspiring a 'Teenage Dream'. I look forward to the Australian cricket team 'floating like a butterfly, stinging like a bee' and to hear our women 'Roar'.
The Male Bag Foundation raises funds to purchase equipment for public rural and regional hospitals to improve prostate cancer diagnoses and treatment. The Male Bag Foundation was established in July 2011 when a couple of men looking for an adventure decided it'd be a good idea to ride from Perth to Melbourne on motorbikes. Incidentally, they didn't own motorbikes nor did they have licences, but they did it anyway because it was a great cause, raising community awareness for prostate cancer and associated issues. Eight years on and they've raised over $1 million for specialist medical equipment for rural communities like mine. In October, the Male Bag Foundation will ride through the greatest electorate on earth. For those who might not know, that's the electorate of Barker! On their ride of more than a thousand kilometres, they'll raise funds for transperineal biopsy machines in the Riverland and the Limestone Coast. This will be a great addition to other services recently announced in those communities, in particular an MRI license for the Riverland.
I'm also looking forward to the new radiation services rolling out on the Limestone Coast next financial year, as announced by our government in April last year. In the time I have left, I want to confirm for the House that I've been spending my time advocating for a prostate cancer nurse for the Limestone Coast as one of the additional 34 Commonwealth-funded nurses announced in last year's budget.
The Central Coast is being left behind by the Liberals. The coast is earmarked for growth with 88,000 new residents living in 40,000 new homes by 2040, and what are the state and federal Liberal governments doing? The New South Wales government announced with much fanfare the $4.2 billion Snowy Hydro Legacy Fund. They say it's 'a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to invest in major and transformative infrastructure across regional NSW' to 'deliver critical infrastructure and priority initiatives identified in their 20-Year Economic Vision for Regional New South Wales' for water security, rail and road transport connections, freight linkages and digital connectivity. What did my community, one of the fastest-growing regions with a backlog of infrastructure, receive? Nothing! Last week, Infrastructure Australia released its annual infrastructure priority list. The chair said:
Australian communities rightly expect that infrastructure investment will be directed to the projects and initiatives that provide the greatest returns for them.
Where is the return from my community? There is not one priority project.
Then we have the Urban Congestion Fund. Over 83 per cent of the $3 billion allocated went to Liberal and marginal seats. Again, my community was short-changed. The marginal Liberal seat of Robertson received over 94 per cent of the $105 million allocated to the Central Coast. The state and federal Liberal governments must do better for my community. It's not good enough.
Great news for North West Tasmania this week, with the Morrison government delivering on yet another commitment and announcing that around 40 young people in my electorate of Braddon will be supported in a vocational education and training program.
The program is targeted at 15- to 24-year-olds living in the Wynyard and Ulverstone regions who are not in full-time work. Successful applicants will receive up to $5,000 a year to complete a VET course, from certificate III to advanced diploma level. They will also be given the opportunity to participate in a 20-business-day paid internship with a local business. What a great initiative. The scholarship targets occupations identified in projected growth industries in demand within our specific region. Priority is given to individuals who have recently exited the Australian Defence Force and young people who come from an Indigenous background, or who have a disability or who are from cultural or linguistically diverse backgrounds. More information about the program, including eligible occupations and how to apply for the scholarship, can be found on the Busy at Work website www.busyatwork.com.au.
This apprenticeship scheme is just another great example of how the Morrison government is providing practical outcomes through practical programs for practical people.
It's like what Warren Buffett said: it's only once the tide really goes out that you can actually see who has been swimming around naked. As much as the visual pains me and pains me to share it with everybody here in the chamber today, the people swimming around naked are those opposite. We are now staring down the edge of a recession in this country because those opposite have been prioritising virtue signalling over a surplus over good economic advice. In fact, all the economic advice—good economic advice—that has come from the experts and people like us who are just trying to do the right thing by our people suggests we need stimulus spending as quickly as possible. For example, we could raise the Newstart rate, which would not only be great social justice initiative; that money, every single dollar of it, would go straight back into local economies, because Lord knows those people need it. We could do business investment incentives, an election policy that we took to the election. The Treasurer pooh-poohed it at the time, but look who's coming around to it now! We could bring forward local infrastructure spending, something that those opposite are very keen to talk about but not very keen to actually do. Thirty projects for South-East Queensland have been announced, but zero have actually started. As Wayne Swan said, 'Trusting the PM to fix the economy is like asking the person who crashed your car to come and do the repairs.'
Speaking of the former member for Lilley, over the years those opposite have had a lot to say about his stimulus package and about him saving us from the global financial crisis. I'm happy to facilitate your apologies to him now that you are staring down at this yourselves and know that a stimulus package is the best thing to do. (Time expired)
I'm pleased to announce that on Friday the 13th—a lucky day of course—the South Australian chapter of the ICPA, the Isolated Children's Parents' Association, will be meeting in Port Augusta. I will be attending their conference. This wonderful group of people are, as their website says, 'The voice of mums and dads living, working and educating children in the bush,' and long may it be so. There are many things the Commonwealth does to assist these parents, but, certainly, the living-away-from-home allowances and the travel allowances only meet a small portion of the fees that these people have to face. I continue to work with them to put their case for the government to look at these particular allowances again. They've been very grateful that the Sky Muster satellite system is now providing a good uninterrupted service for the delivery of School of the Air lessons.
As a plug for the conference, the keynote speaker will be Alex Thomas. Alex was raised in the outback, if you like, on Parnaroo cattle station. She left and now runs a life and well-being organisation which helps people get their lives in order, particularly those living in remote communities, so I'm looking forward to Alex's address next Friday.
Racism is on the rise in Australia at the moment. It is having a particular effect on Chinese Australians and, indeed, the wider Asian Australian community in the context of the coronavirus. Now is the time for solidarity. Now is the time for reaching out and helping out, particularly from those on the side opposite who have the opportunity to make a difference. But the member for La Trobe, the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, has been doing the opposite. He has been fear-mongering on Facebook. His conduct has been described as leaving his position untenable by a number of multicultural groups. His conduct and position is untenable. Let's remember that the member for La Trobe has form with his hateful and divisive rhetoric targeted at African Australians. He has to recognise the offence and the damage he has caused, and he has to correct the record. People are feeling fear and anxiety. They deserve a multicultural affairs spokesperson to be standing up for them, not pulling them down.
What is also untenable is the position of the Prime Minister. He can't pretend this away. He can't pretend that this isn't happening. He has a duty to act. He has a duty to govern for all Australians and, right now, to stand against racism and to stand with Chinese Australians who are under siege, including by the assistant minister for multicultural affairs. (Time expired)
Members of the House will be pleased to learn that last Saturday at the annual Mardi Gras Lifesavers with Pride had the honour of being the principal float in the parade and the excitement of performing with English pop sensation Dua Lipa.
Founded in 2007 and chaired by North Bondi surf lifesaver Gary Driscoll, Lifesavers with Pride is the national group of gay and lesbian Australian surf lifesavers. Their mission is to create an inclusive, progressive and welcoming surf lifesaving culture for the LGBTIQ community. Surf clubs from within my electorate had the most representation on the float, but participants came from clubs all around Australia to march and promote diversity and inclusion within the surf lifesaving community. Six rehearsals were conducted at Tamarama Surf Life Saving Club in preparation for the performance, one of which I was pleased to join in the week before the parade. On Saturday night over 80 very excited participants, clad in surf lifesaving attire with extra sparkles, marched with Lifesavers With Pride. As the principal float, they received applause from the spectators and were congratulated and complimented on their performance to Dua Lipa's song 'One Kiss'. Over the last 13 Mardi Gras 1,203 people have marched with Lifesavers With Pride. Chair Gary Driscoll should be congratulated for his efforts in raising awareness and support for the gay and lesbian surf lifesaving community.
The Prime Minister is now just the great national disappointment. People thought they were going to get the next John Howard. It turns out that all they've got is the , wow sales guy from Danoz Direct. Behind every pitch he makes you know there is absolutely nothing. When that is all you have to work with you do not like questioning. This guy certainly does not like being asked questions. Indeed, he takes absolute offence that there are people in this country who have a right to ask him questions. When they ask him a difficult one, you will never get a straight answer.
During the recent bushfire crisis, from Bilpin to Mallacoota to Cobargo, when what we needed from our national leader was empathy, all we got from this Prime Minister was an aloof arrogance combined with smoke and mirrors. He sets up a $2 billion National Bushfire Recovery Agency and fund. It turns out that all that is is one person sitting at a desk in the Department of PM&C with a notional budget. And don't for a second think that he believes there is anything useful that we have to add. During last year, when the economy was flatlining, we said, 'Bring forward tax cuts; bring forward some of the infrastructure measures.' But he said, 'Don't worry—we have it all in hand, back in the black.' They're not so sure now! We don't see a lot of those Liberals carting 'back in the black' mugs now. (Time expired)
Leadership is important in good times, but it is vital in tough times. As a nation we are facing some very significant challenges. We face drought; we had a significant bushfire season; and we are now dealing with coronavirus. Australians expect a government who, through good leadership, can respond to issues important to them with certainty, resilience and empathy. That is exactly what they have on this side of the House with the Morrison government. You would hope that in a time like this any person in this place would be seeking to provide comfort, assurance and leadership. Disappointingly, that is not the case, because the contrast between the priorities of this government and the Labor members opposite could not be more stark. When Australians go home, around the dinner table they are talking about this government's priorities—about how they can be safe from coronavirus, about how their community is faring after the fires and how we're working through the ongoing drought. They are not talking about Labor's focus on who sends an email to whom or who was invited to where. The Labor Party, with their petty politics, are so caught up in their own bubble that they cannot help but talk down the economy and focus on politics over people. Each day, Labor have used the opportunity in this place to play petty politics. You are not an alternative government, and Australians are watching you with disdain. (Time expired)
It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Treasury has told Senate estimates today that no climate impact modelling has been done in the entire seven years of this government. Now the Prime Minister has had 10 days to consider, does he have the confidence in his position to agree to a debate at the National Press Club before the climate change conference in Glasgow this year?
Unlike the Labor Party, unlike those opposite, we've have got a plan and we've got a target for 2030 which we are going to meet and we're going beat—just as we have already met and will beat the target for 2020. Ten years ago we were in opposition and we set out a plan to hit the 2020 target. We will hit that target, and we will beat the target, with the plan we put in place 10 years ago. And we have a plan to meet the 2030 target, and we set that out before for the last election.
Opposition members interjecting—
Can I just remind the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that anyone watching on television isn't hearing a word they are saying. But, when we are ready to resume, we can, because neither has the call. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. The question went to modelling, and the Prime Minister has not mentioned any of it.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I'll take that as a point of order on relevance. The question was about that but it was also about the prospect of debate. I am listening to the Prime Minister, and he has been relevant to the policy topic so far in his answer.
What I've been outlining is what the government is doing to meet the targets we've set when it comes to taking action on climate change, which is exactly what the subject of the COP processes will be later this year.
Our government has a track record of meeting and beating the targets we set when it comes to meeting our emissions reductions targets. Those opposite can't even tell us what they think the 2030 target should be. Is it 45 per cent, like the member for Maribyrnong thought it should be? Should it be 26 per cent, like the member for Hunter thinks it should be? Should it be a target of 35, as I think the member for Sydney thinks it should be? She was very happy with a 45 per cent target. Those opposite can't even work out what should be done by 2030, but yet they want to parade around the place and talk about a target for 2050. A 2050 target without a plan means one thing: it means a tax on Australians. That is what a target without a plan means; it means a tax on Australians—because they have no plan to make it happen otherwise.
We're putting together the technology plan and the technology roadmap—which may well exceed a zero net carbon outcome in 2050. It may well exceed that. Those opposite came up with a target but they had no clue what it would cost and no clue how they would get there. The interview that the Leader of the Opposition did with David Speers needed encryption analysts to work out what he was actually saying—and they still haven't worked it out! Labor have no plan, no clue, no targets and no idea.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison government is continuing to take action in response to coronavirus? How is the government protecting Australians from this outbreak and building our resilience to the economic effects?
I thank the member for her question. Earlier today the National Security Committee met for some three hours once again. There were some important decisions made, which I announced prior to coming into question time today. Those decisions related to the extension of the travel bans for mainland China and Iran and also to now extend a travel ban to the Republic of Korea.
The Republic of Korea is one of those countries where we've seen a greater outbreak of the virus. In addition, we have upgraded the travel warnings in relation to the RoK to level 3 for all of Korea, and for Daegu it goes to level 4, which is 'do not travel'. We are also upgrading for enhanced screenings the processes for visitors that come from Italy. We have taken these decisions following the health advice today. Indeed, we have gone beyond that health advice in providing that travel ban in relation to the Republic of Korea. In relation to Korea, where the government is now working to expand its enhanced screening capabilities not just for Italy, which have been put in place effective immediately but also to extend it across a broader range of countries so that we can continue to slow the outbreak of the virus and its introduction into Australia. We still have a very small number of cases compared to the experience of many countries around the world.
I want to commend the state and territory governments working so well with the Commonwealth for ensuring that we are managing this as best as possibly can be done by any country. We are not immune but, as I've said, we got ahead of this and we're staying ahead of this. We will continue to do that through the arrangements we're putting in place to control the pace of the outbreak of this virus. Today we've stood up what is known as the national coordination mechanism, which means that the Department of Home Affairs will lead an initiative, together with states and territories, in a whole-of-government approach to ensure that we're addressing the issues that need to be managed outside the health response. You will also have noted today that the secretary of Treasury reported on what Treasury believed would be the March quarter impacts of the coronavirus.
As I've already reported to this House and in other places, the government is now in the final stages of fashioning our response into the economic impacts of the coronavirus. That will have an important focus on keeping people employed and supporting jobs. It will have a focus on keeping businesses in business so that those businesses can support the jobs and incomes of Australians. It will have a focus on ensuring that we bounce back better on the other side of this with our economy by ensuring we're supporting businesses to invest throughout this time, because there will be a strong recovery on the other side of the coronavirus. In the meantime, we will keep Australians healthy and we will support those in business and those employed to ensure that they are there to enjoy the uptick that we'll see on the other side of the coronavirus.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Is the minister concerned about the impact of the government's Inland Rail route on agricultural businesses on the Condamine flood plain. If so, what is he doing about it?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Yes, I do have concerns. In fact, I've been very public about those concerns. It is prime agricultural land. It is a complex flood plain which Inland Rail is proposing to go across. This is an important piece of infrastructure for our nation. Obviously, I have been working very closely with the farmers there. They are pragmatic people. They want an engineering solution to something that is very difficult to get. That is why I have had many conversations with Mr Richard Wankmuller, the CEO of ARTC, about some of those concerns that go back to the baseline hydrology. In fact, we have a meeting next week in Sydney to go through that with hydrologists from both the farming group and ARTC to make sure that those baseline hydrology parameters are set, and then the engineering solution that fits that hydrology is put in place. That is a calm, methodical approach to a key piece of infrastructure. I will stand with those farmers, who I represent and I know personally. They have significant businesses. They are important to this nation's economy. They are important to those communities. We will work through this in a calm, methodical way but ensure that this is predicated on science and engineering, not on emotion.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on global and domestic developments relating to the coronavirus and the actions the Morrison government is taking to protect Australians from this outbreak, particularly in the aged-care sector?
I want to thank the member for Moore in particular for his focus on the Joondalup hospital but also for his focus on aged-care facilities and residents within his electorate. We know that around the world the coronavirus continues to spread. We now have over 95,000 people who have been infected and over 3,250 who have, sadly, lost their lives. Eighty countries have now been touched directly by the virus and all are making preparations in different ways, shapes and forms. One area that is of particular concern to all, of course, is the elderly because of their vulnerability, because of the fact that this virus has an impact on their susceptibility. This has been our top priority, as agreed with the Prime Minister and the national security committee.
As part of that, right from the outset we have worked to take steps to protect facilities and to work with the aged-care sector. In particular, we saw on 31 January, early in February and then later in February direct communications with the whole of the sector as well as specific and ongoing communication with particular facilities and providers. This week we wrote directly to the sector on Monday. Again a fact sheet is being issued on actions and procedures in line with what happens in flu season but particularly for aged-care facilities with regard to coronavirus. Tomorrow the Chief Medical Officer will be leading a planning workshop with the aged-care sector to make sure that all issues in relation to workforce, residents and others are being taken care of.
We know that, sadly, in New South Wales the BaptistCare facility in Macquarie Park had a staff member who was infected. In turn, 14 residents have been in contact with that staff member, and two have been directly infected. One has, sadly, lost their life. I indicated that this may be the case, and that has now been confirmed. She was a 95-year-old woman. That means Australia has now lost two citizens, both elderly, to the coronavirus. So it remains our absolute top priority to protect and support older Australians.
I want to thank NSW Health for their actions in following the plan. When the need was stood up, they were able to move in to provide the support to assist and to make sure that isolation was occurring as has been agreed, as was planned and as was proposed. And the situation as regards to flu has not just been replicated in relation to coronavirus; stronger, further steps have been taken. I want to thank everybody and say we are working— (Time expired)
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that Australians will not suffer a recession under his government?
I can guarantee to the Australian people that they will get the strong economic management they voted for.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Interest rate cuts are hurting Australia's pensioners. Why doesn't the government automatically pass on changes in the RBA cash rate to the pensioner deeming rate?
I thank the member for Mayo for her question. It's a significant issue. As she would be aware, last year we made some changes to the deeming rates so the lower level deeming rate is at one per cent. That was at a cost of $600 million to the budget over four years and benefited around one million Australians. When it comes to setting the deeming rates, you need to take into account investments and a range of assets—superannuation and shares in terms of managed funds, and term deposits—not just the cash rate. Obviously, this a serious issue that we have under consideration and will be part of our broader response.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the impact of coronavirus on the economy both here in Australia and around the world?
I thank the member for Deakin for her question. She is a professor and a paediatrician and she has been a medical researcher at the Royal Children's Hospital for some 28 years, and she knows better than most the significance of the spread of coronavirus and the importance of the measures that we are undertaking in response.
Coronavirus is having an impact on economies right around the world. It's very different to the global financial crisis, which had its genesis in liquidity issues and in the stability of financial markets. This is first and foremost a health crisis, which is having a significant economic impact around the world. The issue of coronavirus and its spread will be solved by medical researchers and scientists, not by economists. That being said, central bank governors and finance ministers from around the world are deploying both monetary and fiscal policy in order to stabilise their economies.
Last night I joined a telephone conference call with the head of the International Monetary Fund, the head of the World Bank, my counterpart from the United States and my counterparts from China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and other countries. It was an opportunity to exchange notes about how each country is responding to the spread of coronavirus. What was clear was that financial markets remain liquid and remain open, but this will be challenging for some time. The International Monetary Fund has announced a $50 billion financing facility in response, and the World Bank has announced a $12 billion package. Here in Australia, the RBA has reduced the cash rate, as recently as this week, and the Prime Minister has foreshadowed a fiscal response from the government which will be targeted, which will be responsible, which will be scalable and which will be designed to keep Australian businesses in business and Australian workers in jobs.
But it is important for the House to acknowledge that this country approaches the challenge posed by coronavirus from a position of economic strength. We saw yesterday, from the national accounts, a lift to growth from the September quarter of 1.8 per cent through the December quarter to 2.2 per cent. As Chris Richardson described it, it was a good set of numbers. We have the confidence and the fiscal flexibility, as pointed out by the OECD when they singled out Australia and Germany as two countries that can respond fiscally to coronavirus without endangering debt sustainability. The hard work that this government has undertaken over the last 6½ years puts us in the best position possible to respond to the economic shock created by the spread of coronavirus.
My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer flagged in September that the government would introduce tax breaks for business investment. It's now March, and still nothing has happened. Does the Treasurer acknowledge this delay has in fact caused businesses to hold back investment decisions for the last six months, at a time when business investment was already at a 28-year low, on his watch?
It's a bit rich, coming from the member for Rankin, who took to the last election a tax on family businesses. It's a bit rich coming from the member for Rankin, who talked about an investment allowance which would start in 2021.
Dr Chalmers interjecting —
Government members interjecting —
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Rankin will cease interjecting. For members on my right, I'm quite capable of reading a clock too, even one that's going backwards. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
The point of order is on direct relevance. The question, while it's a long question, deals very specifically with a single issue and does not in any way deal with alternative policies.
I am just going to say that it did have some commentary at the start, and the Treasurer was only, on my account, about 15 seconds into the answer when the Manager of Opposition Business approached the dispatch box. The Treasurer is allowed a preamble by way of introduction, just as I've allowed a preamble in the questions, and some of the preambles in questions are quite long. I flagged before and I might as well flag it again now: if members on both sides are going to have a problem with this, the solution is simple—there will be no preambles in questions or answers. But for me to call the Treasurer back after 15 seconds would be at odds not just with my practice as Speaker but I think with the practice every other Speaker in living memory.
In yesterday's national accounts, for the December quarter mining investment was up five per cent. When it comes to a business investment allowance, the Prime Minister and I have made it very clear that this is under serious consideration. We are focused on strengthening the economy, and generating more investment is key to generating more jobs. I do want to say to the member for Rankin that the Australian economy is strong. When it comes to investment in the housing market, we saw that it continues to show signs of improvement. Our export performance has been strong and public final demand, which also involves investment, is strongly contributing to growth. They are not my words; they're the words of the Secretary of the Australian Treasury to Senate estimates this morning.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia inform the House how the McCormack-Morrison government is building resilience and growth in regional Australia? Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline how the blessing of recent widespread rainfall will benefit rural Australia and the national economy?
The member for New England is rejoicing about the rain, as he should be. We are as one about the rain—indeed we are. He is nodding enthusiastically, as he should be, and as we all should be. It's raining outside, it's raining across Australia and we should, as the member for New England says, count our blessings. Tropical Cyclone Esther is producing rain. The Tenterfield Dam has reached 100 per cent, and it is spilling over the wall. The mayor of Tenterfield Shire, Peter Petty, said:
Our dam is at 100 per cent! The lifting of spirits around the town is tangible and a real feeling that we can now move on from the dark days of 2019.
Indeed they will.
2020 will truly be a year of renewal for Tenterfield Shire.
Let me give you some figures. In Maranoa, Birdsville has had 67 millimetres and Thargomindah 100 millimetres. Stanthorpe, unfortunately, only had 10 millimetres. In the Parkes electorate, Bourke has had 62 millimetres and Menindee had 16 millimetres. Broken Hill, unfortunately, had just two millimetres. In these electorates, some of those communities are experiencing seven years of drought, and that is crippling. That is such an invasion and a hurt on their ability to make money. In Mallee, Ouyen and Mildura each had 25 millimetres—that's an inch in the old measure. Jason Scott, a grain farmer from Ouyen in Mallee, said: 'The rain will mean we have a great harvest potential, with solid soil moisture at the start of the cropping program. Let's hope it keeps raining.' Indeed, let's hope for that.
The member for New England would be well aware of Dungowan Dam. He and I were there on 13 October last year. There was $484 million invested, in partnership with the New South Wales government, increasing capacity at Dungowan from six gigalitres to 22½ gigalitres. It has served the community of the Peel River well. It's served the Tamworth community well since 1958. But 3½ kilometres downstream we're building a bigger dam. When you combine Dungowan and Wyangala Dam—the wall of which we're increasing from 85 to 95 metres—that is going to give the central west and northern New South Wales areas the additional capacity of an equivalent 1.2 Sydney Harbours. That's going to increase agriculture. That's going to help us get to where we need to get in the future to build agriculture to a $100 billion sector from the $60 billion it is now. That's progress. That's what we need in our country.
We're building dams. Through the National Water Grid, we're mapping the future of water security, applying the best science available. Not every community has received the rain that it needs. Even if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights in some of those communities, that would still not be breaking drought. But we will be there supporting them through it with $8 billion on the table already for the Future Drought Fund and other measures. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. How can we trust that the government's promised stimulus package will be effective when it has already bungled the bushfire recovery, not spent a cent of its promised $4.8 billion Urban Congestion Fund on urban congestion and still hasn't implemented a business tax incentive that it flagged six months ago?
This is the government that, over the last six years, has restored the balance sheet of this country. We have restored the balance sheet of this country after the reckless spending and the inept financial management of those opposite. Australians have returned this government not once but twice because they understand that the Liberal and National parties know how to manage money. That's why they know, as we come together and we deal with this very real and significant challenge to our economy which has been caused by the global coronavirus, that we will have the discipline to ensure that these measures will be targeted to those affected who need it most, that they will be measured and proportional with the challenge, and that they will be scalable to ensure that the government can continue to respond as is necessary to support Australians, to keep Australians healthy, to keep Australians in jobs, to keep Australian businesses in business. This is the government that has cut taxes . This is the government that has led to the creation of 1½ million new jobs. This is the government that, on the most recent national accounts, has seen growth well in excess of the OECD average and, compared to the G7 nations, only the United States was growing more quickly than Australia over the last 12 months.
What I know about the economic management of those opposite is, when they put stimulus measures in place, they sent checks to pets and dead people. They engaged in programs which saw people's homes burned down and saw overpriced school halls. They saw a stimulus package that they were still spending money on four years after the crisis had passed. The Australian people remember the fiscal recklessness of the Labor party, and that's why they keep rejecting them time after time after time. This Leader of the Labor Party, this Leader of the Opposition, is arguably the most financially inept of all the leaders they've had in the past. He's cockier than the last bloke, he's more arrogant than the last bloke and he's even more incompetent. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is working with the education sector to ensure that the education sector is well prepared to meet the challenge of coronavirus?
Can I thank the member for his question; I know his passion for education and his interest in this area, and it's an incredibly important question. As the Prime Minister said earlier, the national coordination mechanism has been established, and that will provide the overarching framework for coordinating the national response to the coronavirus, to COVID-19. Education will be a key component of this overarching framework.
Last Friday, I held a hook-up with all state and territory education ministers to discuss planning preparedness in the childcare sector and the school sector. Also, I've held discussions with Universities Australia about the higher education sector, and discussions have been had with the vocational education sector.
For the information of everyone in the House, there are fact sheets, which are available for schools and early childhood centres for their students and parents. And I would ask everyone to make sure that their childcare centres and their schools in their electorates are aware of these fact sheets and know that they are there and they are available, because it's absolutely vital that we get the necessary information out. There's also information for universities, private higher education providers, vocational education facilities and private vocational education providers, for their students and their staff. I would say to all members: please make sure you're aware of those fact sheets and you know that they're available for your constituents if they have any concerns or are seeking information.
Can I thank the state and territory education ministers for the very responsible way that they've been dealing with the coronavirus. They have wanted to make sure that there is seamless information flow between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. I continue to speak to them on a daily basis, sometimes on a weekly basis, to make sure all that information is there.
Can I also thank the higher education sector, Universities Australia, for the coordination role they're taking. They are making sure that all our universities have in place plans to deal with coronavirus, to make sure that if staff members or a student happen to be unwell, to need attention, then they have in place the plans to deal with that.
It's incredibly important as a nation that we are prepared for this, that we have the facts there and that we keep the community calm. That is exactly what the government is doing, working cooperatively with everyone. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm the Urban Congestion Fund was announced in the 2018 budget? Can he also confirm that, despite spending $17 million on an advertising and marketing campaign ahead of last year's election, not one cent from this fund has been spent reducing urban congestion?
I thank the member for her question. I can confirm that already we have nine projects which are either under construction or are out to tender as we speak and that this year we will have 69 projects which will be under construction, and we expect the remainders to be under construction the following year. Of course, we're working very closely with our state and territory counterparts to see that they are done as quickly as possible. And, even in Victoria where we have the vast majority of those projects, as the minister herself has said, they are working as quickly as possible to get those projects done. In most cases, they are the delivery partner.
I can also confirm that we have literally thousands of projects across Australia underway right now as we speak. This is supporting 85,000 jobs right now as we speak. There are more which are coming. Just this weekend, there'll be another great project, which is going to be opened in Adelaide, the Northern Connecter, as I know the members from Adelaide will be only too aware. There are more which are in planning, which are going to be underway very shortly as well. We have the Monash stage 2 freeway, which will be kicking off next week, providing a minimum of a thousand jobs.
The minister might pause. Is the member for Ballarat rising on a point of order?
I am, on relevance. Can he confirm that zero dollars has been spent out of the Urban Congestion Fund—zero?
No. The member for Ballarat is warned.
I can also confirm that we have a $100 billion pipeline of projects, which is a record amount, and that the amount of infrastructure that we are spending this year, next year and the year is double what the Labor Party was spending in their last year in office. We are able to do this because we have carefully managed the budget and we have managed our finances well so that we've got this record amount to spend on critical pieces of infrastructure, pieces of infrastructure like the Western Sydney airport. That is a project that the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition talked about day in and day out but could never get underway, because he couldn't deal with the issues on the ground and he didn't have the money to be able to do it. You can only do these infrastructure projects when you have sound fiscal management and actually have the money to be able to build them. We've got $100 billion. We've got projects right across the country underway as we speak, 85,000 jobs being supported as we speak and more on the way.
My question is to the Attorney-General as acting Minister for Home Affairs. Will the Attorney outline to the House the measures the Morrison government is taking to protect Australians from the outbreak of the coronavirus?
I thank the member for his question and for his ongoing contribution to national security. As the Prime Minister noted, another very significant decision of the government was made this morning, which decision is obviously designed to slow the onset of what is now the inevitable fact of increasing numbers of clinical presentations of COVID-19. Obviously, decisions about travel, both in terms of band and restrictions, are designed to work in conjunction with ongoing domestic measures. All of these are designed to slow the onset of clinical presentations. Of course, that is critically important to minimise pressures on the health system that will occur in due course. Domestically, those measures are tracking, testing, screening, case isolation and contact quarantine, but, as the Prime Minister announced a short time ago, on the advice of health authorities the government has determined changes with respect to travel for two high-risk jurisdictions. Foreign nationals who were in the Republic of Korea on or after 5 March will not be allowed to enter Australia for 14 days from the time they left or transited through the Republic of Korea, and Australian citizens and permanent residents arriving from the Republic of Korea will be subject to 14 days home based quarantine.
Obviously, the government is always looking at the most effective nature of restrictions. In making this determination on the practicality and capacity as between enhanced screening and bans, I can inform the House for its noting that during the snapshot period between 15 February and 4 March of this year the total arrivals of Italian nationals was 4,800 and the total arrivals of Korean nationals was 16,440. So we have made a practical determination. With respect to those coming in from Italy, there will be preboarding and post-arrival enhanced screening. Pre boarding, there will be mandatory questions at check-in. Border Force liaison officers at overseas airports will work with airlines to identify travellers who should not board. Airlines will also be required to refuse uplift for anyone identified as being unwell. Any passengers identified as unwell on the flight will be identified and referred for further assessment upon arrival. On arrival in Australia, travellers will not be able to use smart gates. Passengers identified as having been in Italy will be referred for health screening at the airport, including temperature and other related health checks, and those presenting symptoms will be subject to further the decisions by health officials in the airports.
I take a final opportunity to thank all those hardworking men and women of Border Force not only for their hard work but because they themselves are taking risks in making these restrictions and bans work. Their incredible adaptability to changing circumstances and the government's decision-making on those changing circumstances has been nothing short of remarkable.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, General Campbell, the chief of the Defence Force, and the Prime Minister were asked the same question: did they speak about the Prime Minister's bushfire ad? General Campbell answered 'yes'. General Campbell could give a straight answer to that simple question. Why can't the Prime Minister? Did General Campbell speak to the Prime Minister to object to the Liberal Party bushfire advertisement?
I confirmed yesterday that the CDF and I had discussed this matter. I confirmed that in this House yesterday.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
Those opposite may not have been paying attention. But, if they reflect on what I said yesterday, I confirmed that he and I spoke on regular occasions, which includes this matter. I wouldn't characterise—
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will pause for a second. Prime Minister, your microphone was off, because I am warning those on my left, who demand that I hear the answer. The Prime Minister has the call.
I would not characterise the conversation in the way that the member just did at the dispatch box.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House the quarantine and biosecurity measures that the Morrison government has taken to ensure that Australia is well prepared to respond to the coronavirus and other risks?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. He knows better than anyone the impacts the coronavirus has had not only on the tourism industry in Far North Queensland but also on the seafood industry. I am proud to say that the Department of Agriculture has been at the forefront of our defence on coronavirus and other biosecurity risks foreign to our nation. I am proud of the men and women at Biosecurity Australia who have been at the forefront of this. They are the ones who have been entering the aircraft and vessels that come from foreign ports in enhanced screening of those countries that pose greater risks, particularly, in the past, China, and now Italy—and we'll do it for any other nation if science predicates us to do that.
I am proud of the fact that these men and women have put their safety on the line for our nation. This is being done in line with safety precautions to ensure their wellbeing, including having the equipment they need. They are entering these aircraft and vessels and doing assessments of those passengers on board to check for any signs or symptoms of coronavirus. They are also handing out face masks to anyone that may not have one and also handing out information material.
We're working with airlines and shipping companies to ensure that they hold up their responsibility to notify Biosecurity officers of anyone on those aircraft and vessels who is ill and making sure that we then work on moving those people from those aircraft and vessels into quarantine in health precincts within the ports. Those people will then be triaged and treated and given the follow-up treatment that is required. That's about not only keeping them safe but also Australians safe.
We have been able to do that as well as keep Australia safe from those foreign biosecurity risks because of the investments we've made in biosecurity. In fact, we made a $66.6 million extra investment in biosecurity in the last 12 months to keep us protected from things like foot-and-mouth disease and African swine fever. That has been about putting more boots on the ground at our ports and also dogs and now technology, 3D x-rays, to help our Biosecurity officers keep us safe from those risks and so that we can live up to our responsibilities with respect to the coronavirus.
Last year, the Immigration minister and I gave our Biosecurity officers more power. We are now allowing them to cancel the visas of any foreign national who seriously threatens the biosecurity of this nation. We will send them back on the plane they came here on, but we are also saying 'You will not be welcome back for an extra three years'. We make no apology for keeping Australians safe and keeping the national assets of this country safe. That is the primary responsibility of this government and we will continue to do more as required.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why is it that the Prime Minister ran an advertising campaign for the Urban Congestion Fund a year ago but still hasn't spent any money reducing urban congestion from this fund? Why is it that he had an ad ready on the day he announced a bushfire response but bushfire affected communities are still waiting for support? Why is marketing rather than substance always the priority of this Prime Minister?
I've noticed that the Leader of the Opposition always puts politics over the serious issues that need to be addressed in this place.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will leave under standing order 94(a).
Me?
Yes, you. It's happened before, and I suspect it will happen again.
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
I totally reject the assertions of the Leader of the Opposition. He constantly comes to the dispatch box treating question time as smear time. The Leader of the Opposition treats question time like he's some sort of Twitter troll. He comes in here on a daily basis seeking to smear, mislead and engage in misrepresentations in a grubby attempt to simply prop himself up, because he has nothing else to talk about.
Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Yes, on relevance. The question was about the government's advertising campaign as opposed to their actual expenditure and action. The Prime Minister hasn't addressed it at all.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As I have said before, when a question is specific it requires the answer to be much tighter. When it has a personal element to it, I've made it clear that ministers and prime ministers are able to rebut that, and it would be unfair to do otherwise. If there's going to be a question that has a personal element to it, as I said, I have a choice: I can rule the question out of order or I can allow the minister or the Prime Minister to deal with that matter and have an opportunity to rebut it. That's the approach Speaker Andrew took, and I think that's the right one. The Prime Minister is in order.
I reject absolutely what the Leader of the Opposition put to this chamber when he came to his feet yet again. This is what the Leader of the Opposition constantly does. He thinks this place is some sort of a game. The issues that are happening outside of this place somehow fall on his deaf ears, as all he does is constantly focus on the smear games of politics.
He talked about advertising. Already on the Labor side they have an advertisement that actually features Defence Force personnel, and he comes in here lecturing this government about those types of practices. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to turn his attention to what is the focus of the government. Right now we are dealing with the very serious issue of Australia's response to the coronavirus. The Leader of the Opposition is even yet to ask me a question on the fact. Last week he couldn't even bother turning up to a briefing on the topic, preferring to do selfies with sports stars than inform himself about the coronavirus. When we approached him a week ago so the National Security Committee could meet, they engaged in disruptive, pathetic games in this place. I'm not going to take lectures from the Leader of the Opposition, who is the equivalent of a Twitter troll in this parliament. I table this document.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister or a minister can table a document at any time at all.
My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Minister for Government Services. Will the minister outline to the House what actions the Morrison government is taking to protect Australians living with a disability from the outbreak of the coronavirus?
I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question and acknowledge her hard work in supporting 1,380 participants in her electorate—and, of course, 61,000 right across Queensland. The Morrison government is committed to supporting Australians with disability, with an unwavering focus on ensuring that participants will receive continuity of care should the risk of a global pandemic outbreak be realised. In fact, all of the agencies, including Services Australia and the NDIA, are preparing intentionally. Over the past few weeks we've focused on the readiness of the agencies, and last week they were instructed to commence their emergency response capability. Activities are focused on building resilient and sustainable service capability in the face of different scenarios.
The NDIA has appointed an incident controller to support preparedness activities, with a fully dedicated and resourced team to implement the response, and the NDIA is in the process of rolling out a crisis communication system. I know the Leader of the Opposition isn't interested in the crisis communication system and incident controller for the NDIA, but it might help if you listen rather than be a Twitter troll!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the government started work on an advertising campaign for a stimulus package?
No.
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting our Pacific friends and our neighbours to respond to the coronavirus outbreak?
I thank the member for Ryan for his question and note his strong and effective advocacy for Pacific peoples not just in his electorate but across South-East Queensland.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the very senior delegation of governors and members from Papua New Guinea we have here today. On behalf of the parliament and the Australian people, thank you for everything you did for us in the season of crisis that we have had here in Australia. We thank Papua New Guinea very deeply, from our hearts.
The health security of Australians living at home or across our wider region is the top priority of the Morrison government. As the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health have daily reminded us, we're working together with our regional neighbours to make sure we stay ahead of the spread of coronavirus. As a priority, we're working closely with our Pacific neighbourhood to help them understand and prepare for a potential outbreak of COVID-19. I'm happy to say that, as of today, outside Australia and New Zealand there are no confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the Pacific or Timor Leste. However, Australia remains vigilant as the possibility of a global pandemic is now widely acknowledged, especially by us here in Australia. In response, we've already made more than $5 million available across the Pacific and Timor Leste. The funding directly supports laboratory diagnosis; personal protective equipment; healthcare workers; risk communication strategies; and national response planning and budgeting.
Together with New Zealand, we've already invested $1 million in the World Health Organization's Pacific office in their COVID-19 response plan. Further, we've sent two experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the WHO's Pacific technical department in Suva to support the response coordination in our region. With our financial support, our Pacific island countries will now be able to access essential medical stockpiles from the WHO's global stockpile. Our funding is also supporting surge capacity, enabling the WHO to respond to requests for infection prevention, control, clinical management and risk communication.
In addition to what I've just outlined, Australia is building a scalable response plan to manage and assist with a future outbreak of COVID-19 for the Pacific. This plan will cover preparedness, clinical surge response capacity, and partnerships between key Australian sources of public health and medical expertise. The long hot summer that we've seen and the bushfire crisis demonstrated that close and strong familial bond between Australians and Pacific island people. Whether it was the Papua New Guinea defence force, whether it was people raising money in wheelbarrows, collecting money from villages across the Pacific, they turned up for us in our time of need, and we will return that support to Pacific island countries in their time of need.
On behalf of all members, I want to again pass on our thanks to every Pacific island country for their support during the difficult summer we've had. From the outset we have said that we will remain vigilant. Vitally, we stand ready to assist our Pacific neighbours manage any outbreak of COVID-19 as it emerges.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On the bushfires, the Deputy Prime Minister has said:
It really annoys me that I think states have been let off the hook largely this summer.
When people in bushfire affected communities just want help, why is the government blaming Gladys Berejiklian?
What I also said was that under the federation model the state governments take on responsibility as first responders and they perform that role in fighting the fires—and they have, and well done to them. As far as the recovery efforts, again the states first and foremost rely on us when they call us, but we can't do it all as a Commonwealth, because that's their obligation and responsibility. What I also said—and this is important—was we will work with them and we will be there for the long haul—as we will. We have already put $2 billion on the table. We will be there to help them through this crisis, but it will be ongoing. It will be months, if not years. That's what I said. If you want to start talking about these things, you should say exactly what I said, not just a bit of it.
My question is to Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and the Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is ensuring resilience in our trade sector and how this approach is benefiting regional communities?
I thank the member for Nicholls for that very-well-crafted and incisive question. It is much appreciated. I was reading through the Otis papers the other day, and there is a member on that side of the House who could use a bit of a hand with his questions, as I understand it. It's the member for Hunter. I think it would be great if you could give him some tips on writing well-crafted questions.
The assistant minister needs to answer the question he was asked.
Our ambitious trade agenda has resulted in resilience for the trade sector and for country Australia. We've got more Australian businesses exporting goods. We've had more than 53,000, including 46,000 small to medium-size enterprises exporting goods in 2017-18. We've got more jobs, Member for Nicholls. With one in five Australians employed in trade-related employment, it's estimated that more than 240,000 trade-related jobs have been created in the last five years.
Member for Nicholls, in terms of Victoria, you might be interested to know that today the ABS announced that we posted a trade surplus of $5.21 billion in the month of January in seasonally adjusted terms, with good exports in Victoria, having grown to just over $2 billion. This is on top of our largest ever calendar year trade surplus of $67.6 billion in 2019. This is now a record 25 consecutive monthly trade surpluses. Our ABS data also showed that in 2019 Australia exported approximately $47.9 billion worth of rural goods, which is an increase of $225 million on 2018. I note that in January rural exports rose 5.7 per cent—a very encouraging result.
We on this side of the House know that the export strength of Australia is built on country Australia and country communities, and the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture agree. We know that one of the things that's really helped our country communities and our farmers through this most recent drought is that stock prices have held up, so when producers have had to sell they haven't had to sell their stock for a pittance they can get a decent return. Our free trade agreements have played an important role in supporting those stock prices and building resilience in the trade sector but also building resilience in our country communities.
On this side of the House we're going to support agriculture and we're going to support agricultural resilience. On that side of the aisle, we know what's in store for agriculture with their policies. It's cattle culling with their crazy, reckless emissions reduction policies—
No, the assistant minister was not asked about alternatives.
We're going to support miners and the mining industry. We say to those opposite: support our free trade agreements, support country Australia and support the jobs so vital to country Australia. (Time expired)
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Prime Minister promised $2 billion of immediate support for bushfire affected communities but months later he's spent just 10 per cent;
(b) the Prime Minister had an advertisement ready on the day he announced his bushfire response but bushfire affected communities are still waiting for support;
(c) the Prime Minister promised to "rephase and revise" his bushfire efforts but bushfire affected communities are still waiting;
(d) the Prime Minister has sought to blame the states for months for his failed response to the bushfires instead of fixing it;
(e) the Prime Minister ran an advertising campaign for the Urban Congestion Fund a year ago but still hasn't spent any money from this fund reducing urban congestion;
(f) in Question Time, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to provide the same straight answer the Chief of the Defence gave to the same question, and today bizarrely misled the Parliament about yesterday's non-answer; and
(g) the Prime Minister has refused to give straight answers about his role in the sports rorts scandal despite the Australian National Audit Office finding his office was directly involved even on the day the election was called;
(2) therefore, condemns this Prime Minister for always putting marketing ahead of acting in the national interest and failing to provide straight answers to simple questions; and
(3) further notes, that today in question time the Prime Minister engaged in deceptive conduct by attempting to criticise the Leader of the Opposition by tabling a document without revealing it was authorised by George Wright, the ALP National Secretary twice removed and said breaking news about Tony Abbott, the Liberal Prime Minister twice removed.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Prime Minister promised $2 billion of immediate support for bushfire affected communities but months later he's spent just 10 per cent;
(b) the Prime Minister had an advertisement ready on the day he announced his bushfire response but bushfire affected communities are still waiting for support;
(c) the Prime Minister promised to "rephase and revise" his bushfire efforts but bushfire affected communities are still waiting;
(d) the Prime Minister has sought to blame the states for months for his failed response to the bushfires instead of fixing it;
(e) the Prime Minister ran an advertising campaign for the Urban Congestion Fund a year ago but still hasn't spent any money from this fund reducing urban congestion;
(f) in Question Time, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to provide the same straight answer the Chief of the Defence gave to the same question, and today bizarrely misled the Parliament about yesterday's non-answer; and
(g) the Prime Minister has refused to give straight answers about his role in the sports rorts scandal despite the Australian National Audit Office finding his office was directly involved even on the day the election was called;
(2) therefore, condemns this Prime Minister for always putting marketing ahead of acting in the national interest and failing to provide straight answers to simple questions; and
(3) further notes, that today in question time the Prime Minister engaged in deceptive conduct by attempting to criticise the Leader of the Opposition by tabling a document without revealing it was authorised by George Wright, the ALP National Secretary twice removed and said breaking news about Tony Abbott, the Liberal Prime Minister twice removed.
The fact is that this is the Humphrey B Bear of politics. You get more answers out of Humphrey—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. He's an adman without a plan.. He thinks he's above it all. He thinks he doesn't have to answer questions—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
He cannot give a straight answer to any single question.
():
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment representing the Minister for Women. Noting that this Sunday is International Women's Day, will the minister update the House on the Morrison government's commitment to gender equality?
Opposition members interjecting—
Jeers opposite—that's exactly what I'd expect. But I thank the member for Robertson and congratulate her on her leadership in women's policy. Sunday is International Women's Day, with the theme that an equal world is an enabled world. Enabling opportunities for women in our work and in our society is about growing our economy and managing our economy, and female participation in the workforce is critical. The January 2020 labour force figures show that women's employment is at record highs, with over 6.1 million women employed. The women's workforce participation rate rose sharply that month, to a new record high of 61.5 per cent. Under the Morrison government, full-time employment has increased strongly over the last year, as we know, by 143,880 jobs, with women attaining more than eight out of 10 of those jobs. At the heart of the government's women's policy is economic policy. We've changed the superannuation rules, including concessional catch-up contributions, to boost superannuation for women so women can take time away for their family responsibilities, because financial independence while working has to extend into any retirement.
As which approach International Women's Day, we know there's more work to do, but we should be proud of what we have achieved. The percentage of women on ASX 200 boards is at 30.7 per cent and increasing. Women are in close to 50 per cent of all Australian government board positions, and the gender pay gap is at record lows. Couple that with our reforms to paid parental leave and our reforms to child care. I do ask that on International Women's Day this Sunday we see what we can all do as individuals to encourage women into the workforce, to create working environments that help women and, indeed, men juggle the challenges of family life while advancing their careers.
Sport has been a great barometer in life, and there's something fitting about the fact that International Women's Day sees Australia host the women's T20 series for the first time. There are women role models coming out onto the field, inspiring us all with their athleticism, their heart and their determination. Over the last couple of weeks, we've followed the results closely and cheered the efforts of our team under Meg Lanning. While I've been close to the scourge of drought, it seems strange to say I do hope the Sydney weather clears enough tonight to allow our T20 women the 10 overs of play they will need to defeat South Africa at the SCG. I think everyone in the House would join me in saying we hope to see Australia lift the trophy at the MCG on International Women's Day on Sunday.
On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
I claim to be misrepresented.
The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.
Today in question time the Prime Minister repeated a claim he's made outside this House: that there was a refusal to have a briefing from the Chief Medical Officer last Wednesday. That is not true. The facts are these. At 7.25 pm last Wednesday the health minister's office rang the shadow health minister, Chris Bowen, saying that there'd been a mix-up in CMO Brendan Murphy's office, and that he had arrived at parliament to give the opposition a briefing. That briefing went ahead at 7.30 pm with the shadow health minister, my chief of staff and my senior health adviser. At that time, I was with the Prime Minister at the vigil for Hannah Clarke and her children. That's where I was when that phone call was made. I was unaware of any of this until the next day, and I confirmed with Brendan Murphy when I met with the CMO this week that that was the fact of what occurred.
I claim to be misrepresented.
You claim to have been misrepresented. You may proceed.
In The Age newspaper on 2 March in the 'Letters to the editor' section, it was represented that my comment, 'The evidence is clear, young Australians are living at time when they are safer from climate disasters than any at any time human history,' was made without any evidence in support of my statement. This is incorrect. My statement is in fact supported by evidence from the emergency events database, known as EM-DAT, from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters located within the School of Public Health at the University of Louvain in Brussels, and my statement is further supported by analysis of that data by Professor Lomborg.
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 Scullin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to stand up for Multicultural Australia.
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—
'All of us know how to hate, but not all of us know what it's like to be hated.' With these words the former Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, opens his book On hate. This is a call for empathy, and it's also an urgent call to action, because more and more Australians are being subjected to the hate that is racism. We, in particular those of us who have the privilege to serve in this place—more so, those who serve in Australia's government—need to think more about the effect of our actions on others.
Australians are rightly proud of our multicultural society, but we can't take it for granted. On this side of the House we most certainly do not. It is under threat, in particular from the insidious force that is racism. While the work undertaken by the Scanlon Foundation shows us that this year 85 per cent of Australians believe that multiculturalism has been good for Australia, this survey also identified some worrying trends. People's sense of belonging in Australia is in decline, and more people have been reporting discrimination based on their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion. This has more than doubled in the decade from 2007 to 2017.
The truth is that racism is on the rise in Australia. In particular, we are seeing a rise in race based violence. Recently, we have seen some shocking incidents of anti-Semitism, in particular the display of Nazi flags in Victoria and also in northern Tasmania. We have seen shocking and repeated incidents of Islamophobia, including this summer, with the dreadful, unprovoked attack on a heavily pregnant Muslim woman by a stranger in Parramatta.
I'm afraid to say that we are witnessing a creeping normalisation of hate. One attack on an Australian because of who they are, how they worship or how they look is one too many. I'm sure we all agree on this, but there is so much more to be done by those who have the power to make a difference. Let me be clear: the vast majority of Australians abhor racism, but we need national leadership, setting the standard and leading by example. This has been sadly missing in this place.
In relation to the coronavirus, I note the bipartisanship that's characterised our public health response. I note that we saw a wide range of responses from government ministers highlighting aspects of this disease and our response, in particular going to the risks to our economy, but I heard nothing about its impact on multicultural communities. Our response and bipartisanship here should extend to tackling the racism that Chinese Australians and Asian Australians more generally are being subjected to.
When I've been out and about I've heard awful stories of racism and exclusion at what is a terribly difficult time, with businesses closing and people losing hours in their jobs as well as worrying about friends and family overseas. Last night, Chin Tan, the current Race Discrimination Commissioner, said there had been a spike in race related reports and complaints to the Human Rights Commission.
There's another way to deal with this, to show leadership. In New Zealand, the response to coronavirus shows us the path. 'Coronavirus is not an excuse to be racist and xenophobic' was the clear message of their Give Nothing to Racism campaign. It's a message we should heed here.
By way of contrast, this week the position of the assistant minister for multicultural affairs has been described as untenable by a range of multicultural groups, following a social media post. We remember that that minister, the member for La Trobe, has form on using inflammatory language about African gangs to feamonger and divide, but he has said nothing to correct the record here and neither has the Prime Minister stepped in to stand up for Australians who are feeling pressure and feeling anxiety. It is yet another failure of leadership. We also heard the disrespectful remarks to our Hindu community made the Treasurer in this place. We on this side of the House know two things about the member for Kooyong. We know that he has a sense of self-confidence that is almost inversely proportionate to his achievements in this place, but we also know that he is a decent man with a consistent record in standing against race. That's why his comments were so disappointing. Meantime, Labor has been listening, and we have been acting, too. We have been calling for a new national antiracism campaign to be funded. The Federation Of Ethnic Communities' Council of Australia has strongly supported this call, as have other multicultural representative groups. On 13 February I wrote to the acting minister, seeking his support for such a campaign. As of today he hasn't bothered to reply.
None of this takes place in a vacuum, of course. We see that tomorrow Stirling Hinchliffe, the Queensland Minister for Multicultural Affairs, has convened a ministerial council on multicultural affairs, the first in nearly a decade. The federal government won't be participating. Back in October, I wrote to the minister and asked if he would—
An opposition member: Why not?
'Why not?' I'm asked. I wrote and suggested that the minister should attend. I haven't received a response, six months on. That shows this government's priorities when it comes to standing up for multicultural Australia. The Queensland government and other states, including Liberal states, are leading the way, but this government is blind to the insidious forces that are undermining our multiculturalism. We note under this government the successive machinery of government changes that have devalued multiculturalism within national government. We note the cuts to settlement services. Anyone who's read the Shergold report sees what a damning indictment it is of this government's approach to everything that's about supporting new migrants and supporting new and emerging communities—indeed, even on Liberal terms, on encouraging economic participation and entrepreneurship, which have been such a feature of first- and second-generation migrations.
There is also a failure to take on those who seek to undermine our multiculturalism. I think of the speeches given by former Prime Minister Abbott and former Foreign Minister Downer last year, speeches given overseas that talked down Australia. They were speeches that should have been held to account by the Prime Minister or a minister in this government, yet these attacks on multicultural communities were left to stand. Of course, the Abbott government proposed changes to the Race Discrimination Act to weaken protections against hate speech, and the then Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, said, 'Everyone's got the right to be a bigot.' He should have listened to the words written by Tim Soutphommasane. He should reflect on that contribution. More recently, this parliament was disgraced by the vile speech of former Queensland senator Anning, who called for a 'final solution' to what he described as Australia's immigration problem. This was followed by coalition senators voting for Senator Hanson's infamous 'It's okay to be white' motion in the Senate.
It's now been more than seven years since Prime Minister Julia Gillard funded the 'Racism. It Stops With Us' campaign. This campaign helped raise awareness of racism in the community and galvanised action across Australia. Across Australia today people and organisations are doing good things to reduce and prevent racism, particularly following the high-profile Adam Goodes documentaries, which highlighted the continuing racism directed against our First People. But all of us in this parliament, and especially those in government, those who hold the responsibility for these issues, must demonstrate the leadership that these times require.
The ASIO director-general has said that far Right and neo-Nazi groups are emerging as one of Australia's most challenging security threats. The latest report from the Global Terrorism Index says there has been a 320 per cent increase in far Right terror in the past five years, and of course we approach the anniversary of the Christchurch massacre, that awful day when an Australian killed 51 people at worship. We saw news out of New Zealand overnight that police in Christchurch have the home of a man they believe could be linked to a threat in one of the mosques involved in last year's terror attack. The Australian parliament then came together in sorrow and respect. On that day, the Prime Minister did speak for us all. He said:
At the heart of all extremism … is the inability to tolerate difference, a hatred of difference, and a hatred about the choices of others. We must strive to see the 'us' in our national life and to celebrate it …
He was right. He's still right. But we must do more. These fine words have been belied by action and by inaction.
We can't forget the horror of that day. We must not. We must do more to foster respect, to build solidarity. In the Prime Minister's terms, to see the us, not reinforce a sense of us and them, which is so present right now and which is undermining all that is good about our multicultural society, is modern Australia's greatest achievement. One year on, we must ask ourselves: have we learned all the lessons of this tragedy, this awful massacre? Have we done all that we can do to stand up for our multiculturalism, to understand what it's like to be hated, to demonstrate a zero-tolerance approach to the corrosive poison that is racism? I fear that we haven't. Today, I call on the Morrison government and every member of it to stand up for multiculturalism and to stand up for every Australian.
The government does indeed join with the opposition in standing up to racism and the targeting of people by race in our country and acknowledging that we do in fact live in the greatest multicultural society on earth. We have welcomed more people from more places to Australia and integrated them seamlessly into a culture based on fairness and freedom.
While the member for Scullin has raised this matter of public importance today with a negative tone, in many cases about the government's performance but also about the state of our society, I take a different tone in relation to multiculturalism in Australia. I think the cohesion of our society is as strong as ever. I think that the integration of people from around the world is going better than ever. I think almost all Australians, with the support of our state and federal governments, believe more than ever in the integration of people from around the world into our society—probably stronger than they ever had in modern Australian terms.
The government overwhelmingly recognises that migrants have made the most substantial contribution to this country. Think about how in the last census 49 per cent were either been born overseas or have a parent born overseas. It's probably 50 per cent by now; it's probably over half. It's all of us. It's probably most of us here in this chamber right now. Most people listening have probably had a parent or been born overseas.
Not most of this chamber; let's be frank!
Yes, myself. When the member opposite likes to cite her diversity as something better than other people's diversity, she ignores reality. When you say it's not you and not others—
Dr Aly interjecting—
Ms Kearney interjecting—
I would ask that this debate be conducted in a civil manner by all sides. This is obviously a very serious matter and—
Dr Aly interjecting—
After further consideration, I ask the minister to withdraw.
If I've offended you, I withdraw, but your tone and the words that you take in this House—
The minister will make his comments through the chair, not directly to other members.
Certainly. The member for Cowan should reflect that people have come from all parts of the world to Australia over many years and, just because you're a migrant from one country, that doesn't make you better than another. The tone that you take when you enter that debate—as if, somehow, just because you've arrived more recently or you have more chips on your shoulder, you're better than others—is exactly the essence of what has happened in this debate from the member for Scullin.
The reason I raise this is because there's nobody in this chamber who doesn't resist Nazism. The idea that somehow we have one or two idiots out there who want to fly a Nazi flag represents a lack of cohesion in our society is absolutely false, and I reject it. Almost every Australian rejects Nazism and the premise of Nazism. In fact, my own grandfather was a resistance fighter in Greece against Nazis. I hate Nazis. As you said, we have the capacity for hate; yes, we do.
We do hate evil and we do hate Nazis and we do hate people who engage in those terrible ideologies. But we shouldn't seek to divide people because we have people who sometimes make statements that we disagree with. That is not a question of threatening our entire cohesion. In fact, almost every Australian agrees on these things. If you bring a matter for public debate into this House and say that the government is failing on something as essential as multiculturalism, you are ignoring reality. Australian governments of all persuasions have been committed to this kind of social cohesion for a long time. We know the modern Labor Party seeks to try to create a wedge or division on these issues from time to time.
The member for Scullin quotes the Scanlon report. I will quote the Scanlon report. Let's quote the facts in the Scanlon report. The facts are the facts: 90 per cent of respondents in the Scanlon report expressed a sense of belonging—90 per cent. Eighty-five per cent of respondents agreed that multiculturalism has been good for Australia. These are historically high figures. All governments are committed to them increasing further. All governments are committed to integration of people from all over the planet into the great Australian values of freedom, fairness and the Australian life that we have.
When you bring a matter like this to the House and attempt to say that somehow we lack social cohesion or we are facing an unprecedented—the argument that we are facing an unprecedented threat from racists is not correct. Of course there are people who engage in this behaviour in our society today. Our agencies, rightly, raise that they will take those threats, whether they are from the right or whether they are from the left, just as seriously. Extremists from either end of the spectrum threaten our cohesion. But they are very small and they are very narrow, and they ignore the fundamental story of this country's great success.
This is a government that believes in our country's success—where we have been, where we are now and where we are going in the future. We have one of the most comprehensive yet one of the most disciplined immigration programs on the planet—acknowledged even by President Trump in his first State of the Union address. It was acknowledged by the United Kingdom, who have attempted to remodel their immigration program on our own. It is looked at by countries in Europe as the envy of the world, because we do bring people here. We do have a system that identifies people who want to come here and makes sure they fit in with Australian values and brings them here and integrates them seamlessly into our society, our land of opportunity.
The reality of modern Australia is that we bring people from all over the world who want to come here and contribute. I say to the members opposite: never forget that's the prime reason people come here—for the opportunity to have a go and, certainly, to do the great things that they have done since the great waves of migration that we've seen. How does that translate, mostly? That translates, mostly, into that great Australian identity of opening up your own small business—mostly a family small business. That's what most migrants do when they come to Australia.
Opposition members interjecting—
I hear groans opposite, but I say to those members opposite: there are more migrants employed in family and small business than you would imagine. Eighty-three per cent of those business owners start their first business venture after moving to Australia. They employ more than 1.4 million people. This is the golden scene of Australia. People come here for that opportunity. It doesn't matter what part of Sydney you go to, which community you talk about or whether it's recent migrations or migrations from years ago—you can go into your corner shop, your market garden or any small business across Sydney and find people from different parts of the world working in small and family business.
While the Labor Party continues to reject this, while they continue to not understand that that's one of the most important things that migrants come here for—those opportunities to work hard and take care of their families, and the importance of the family unit to migration—they have a fundamental lack of understanding of what happens in migration and what makes cohesion.
Opposition members interjecting—
Yes, I know you don't understand. I really do. And I think it's not understood in terms of your policies. If you say that the Australian government's failing in multiculturalism, if you don't understand that most people who come in migration waves work in their own businesses and start up their own businesses and take an opportunity, then your policies reflect that. The Australian government's policies are geared towards promoting small business and an environment for people to open and start their own small business. Why? Because we know when you enter here and you've got nothing and you've come from a place which is in a very difficult part of the world, one of the greatest features of this country is that you can create your own business. You can start up your own enterprise. You can make something of yourself for your family, so that your kids can then get that university degree and get that qualification. That is the real story of migration. For those opposite to ignore it in policy is a real failure. The government will never fail our migrants, because we understand they come here for those opportunities—to unlock opportunity for them, their children and grandchildren.
That's why Australia is one of the greatest places in the world. People used to say it was America, but more people come here and share more wealth than in any other society on earth. We have a more even and fair society than any other in the world today. More people share more wealth here than in any other society. We have more opportunity here, and long may it remain the case.
The government's got a suite of policies that understand all this. We understand enterprise, opportunity and, of course, the need to access education for children. While the members opposite want to sit there and lament about the negative features of life—there will always be negative features of life—it's the role of governments and leadership to promote the right policies that enable opportunity and people to get ahead in life. It's up to the authorities to deal with those extreme elements that take the wrong tack in life.
But we shouldn't be pessimistic about what a great country this is, filled with great people with great hope and opportunity, who have come from all corners of the world and made something of themselves for them and their family. Australia is overwhelmingly a great success story. It's a great place, and it's evidenced by the fact that more people want to come here than any other country on Earth today. We're a country of choice. So, please, let's not be negative. Let's be positive about our country, let's be positive about our future, let's be positive about the great integration story Australia represents. (Time expired)
I must say that feeble contribution by the last speaker merely proves the point of this MPI. But rather than respond directly to that, I'm going to do what Michelle Obama does when they go low. My family, on 9 June 2019, celebrated 50 years in Australia, and the Australia that they came to was a very different Australia to the Australia that we have today. It was an Australia that had just opened its borders to non-western European immigration and an Australia that was awakening to the diversity of our world. It wasn't actually until the early eighties that my family stopped being called aliens—and not the aliens that built the pyramids, but a different kind of aliens.
I grew up in a family that wasn't very political. We hardly talked about politics; it wasn't something that we spoke of over dinner. We weren't members of any political party, and we didn't get involved in elections—none of that. But we always knew, my family always knew, and my parents always said that a Labor government was the kind of government that would look after us. It was a Whitlam government that removed the final vestiges of the white Australia policy, which meant that we were no longer aliens. It was the Whitlam government that introduced a policy of multiculturalism to Australia that gave us SBS and language services and spoke to us about the importance of cultural and language retention—institutions that have lasted for decades and that Australia is very proud of.
It was the Hawke and Keating governments that made education available for my parents and for their children. It increased funding for schools, it gave us universal health care and Medicare and dental insurance and legal aid and rights at work. It was the Gillard and Rudd governments that gave us the NDIS, the NBN, the apology and Work Choices. Successive Labor governments gave my family aspiration, as they did to many of the other families of people here in this House and out there listening to us now. They afforded us the opportunity for social mobility.
I remember as a young kid my mum and dad always saying to the three of us, my brother and sister and I: 'We came to this country for you. We gave up everything for you.' Back then I thought it was cringe-worthy, and as teenagers we would rebel and we say, 'We never asked you to.' But now I understand the meaning of those words, now I understand what my parents gave up to come to this country and now I understand what this country, through successive Labor governments and through Labor policies, gave back to my family and enabled my family to do. It is through those policies that afforded my family's social mobility that the daughter of a bus driver from a town called Mansoura can stand here in this place today. Let me say, Labor continues to be the party for a modern multicultural Australia—and you don't need any more proof than the previous member's contribution to this debate.
We're not just for those who came here 50 years ago, 40 years ago or 20 years ago but for their children and their children's children—second- and third-generation migrants. We're for my children, who don't speak Arabic, don't listen to Arabic music—but, when we're having guests, I cook an Arabic meal every time. And we're for their children, who likely won't speak Arabic and who likely will be half Egyptian and half something else in origin. What more describes a modern, multicultural Australia than the intercultural, interfaith children we see today, who are products of an Australia where multiculturalism is such a centrepiece of our identity and who we are?
Labor will continue to be the party for multiculturalism. Labor will continue to be the party that stands up for a multicultural Australia and that delivers policies that enable social mobility for so many people who are making their way here right now or who have made their way here last week, last month, last year or five years ago for a better life for themselves and for a better life for their children. Labor, and the policies that Labor has put in in the past and the policies that a Labor government would bring in the future, is the party for those people, for the modern, multicultural nation that we are. (Time expired)
I've been here for six or seven years. In politics, you get used to the opposition—and maybe it's the nature of opposition—in that they'll draw a long bow on different topics to make a point. One that springs to mind is that, even if you're increasing spending on something, they'll say things like you're cutting spending on it, to make a political point. They'll exaggerate different things. I have to say, I am actually really disappointed in the member for Scullin for bringing this MPI to parliament today. I don't think I've ever seen such a grubby suggestion. If you read this MPI, he is saying:
The failure of the Government to stand up for Multicultural Australia
What he is, in default, saying is that we're not standing up for a multicultural society.
I think that this country—and it has been said before—is the most successful multicultural society in the world. That hasn't happened by mistake. We don't have a proud history in this. Neither side of politics has a proud history in this. Pre-World War II, if you look at both the major sides of politics, they both stood by the White Australia policy. I think we would all look back now and say that our predecessors in this sphere were far from perfect. But what we have had since World War II—and I haven't heard anything in this chamber in the six years I've been in here like this—and what I've always heard in this chamber for the last six years is bipartisan support on this issue. We have sat here and asked how we can be better. What have we done well, what are both sides of politics supporting—
The member for Cowan and the member for Mitchell will desist with their argument across the table.
I may have missed it, but in six years I have never heard racism or multiculturalism framed in as partisan a way as it has been today. It has been worded to wedge our success and the fact that since World War II both sides of politics have been working for the same outcome. I think we have succeeded in great ways, in the fact that we are such a successful multicultural society.
The way this is worded by the member for Scullin—I have a personal like for the member for Scullin, which is why this matter of public importance surprises me. What this says is a personal insult to people on this side of politics. To say that they are a member of a government that is not standing up for multicultural society is an insult, including an insult to the member for Chisholm, who's going to be up next. It's a personal insult to her to say that she is not, as a first-generation Australia, standing up for multicultural society. Again, it's very disappointing.
Even the member for Cowan—Member for Cowan, what a wonderful story you tell. What a wonderful story you tell in the context of your family. I acknowledge you, I acknowledge your family and I acknowledge your wonderful story. But I too could, in a partisan way, stand here and go through the initiatives of the Menzies government, Harold Holt's government and every Liberal or National government since World War II that have made us a successful multicultural society. I acknowledge all the points you made about Whitlam and I acknowledge the points you made about Hawke and Keating—great initiatives. It's a shame that you can't see that on this side of politics, because both sides of politics have made this happen. Multiculturalism has been a very bipartisan issue for many, many decades.
Again, I understand that we need to have robust debate on certain things and that we do disagree on things. I haven't seen it on the issue of national security because the major parties have tended to agree on that; in the defence of our nation and for the safety of our citizens, we tend to agree mostly on that. But this is another issue that I have never seen debated in this manner in this parliament in seven years. While we might disagree at the edges or say, 'We can do a bit here or do a bit there,' it has always been in a bipartisan manner. The member for Scullin's matter of public importance today is grubby and should stand as that.
Before I call the next member, I'm just going to state that members need to direct their remarks through the chair. This is quite an emotional and emotive type of subject matter. So please direct your remarks through the chair. Let's debate this like we are the Australian parliament.
The simple truth is that, other than First Nations people, in this country we are all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. There is no greater story in Australia than our pattern of immigration. The more immigrants I get to talk to, the more I know they have come here for the same two reasons. It is always for a better life for themselves and for a better life for their families. Australia's development has been based on that. But the criticism I make of the government is that I think they have taken multiculturalism for granted. Sure, they'll be at the Tet festival , the Moon Festival, the Chinese New Year and every other event there is out there. But can I put this from a personal perspective.
I have the honour to represent one of the most multicultural communities in the whole of Australia. People in my community come from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Turkey, I have many Uighurs from China, and many Chinese as well; and, more recently, people coming from Iraq and the Middle East. We are, quite frankly, a successful example of multiculturalism and of how people can live together and work together in harmony. But the point I want to make is that this doesn't just happen by chance. We have a strong, successful multicultural community because we work at it. You cannot take this for granted.
I've heard what other speakers have said in terms of the attacks on the mosque in Christchurch and, similarly, the Muslim woman who was attacked in Parramatta. I employ two Muslims on staff, one who wears the hijab, and they have reported to me how they've also been singled out. They don't decry the fact that their religion or anything else distinguishes them. They are also very, very pleased that they work and live in a multicultural environment. Now, we can all go and find problems in it, but the thing is that you've got to work to make it happen.
More recently, we have had many, many migrants come in as refugees from the Middle East. As a matter of fact, we supported Tony Abbott's plan to take 12,000 immigrants from Syria under the Special Humanitarian Program intake. Of those 12,000, as the minister is aware, 7,000 came to my area of Fairfield—7,000. My area is not hostile to refugees or hostile to immigrants, but we do expect a fair go. I would like to think that, because we accept the majority of refugees coming to this country under a special humanitarian intake, we would get some form of special weighting when it comes to allocating the finances to resource their settlement. Settlement is so critically important. It's not just getting a kid to school or getting someone into a house; it's inculcating becoming part of community.
As a matter of fact, the police spoke to me about this. They said that one of the things we have in common, not that I necessarily follow it, is soccer, and their suggestion, particularly for the Middle Eastern enclave coming here, was that maybe we should get more kids from there into playing soccer, because they are passionate about it. They thought that, by doing that, their families would get involved in getting kids to training and taking kids to matches and they would become part of the community—they would have something in common. That's why I got really upset when I saw the San Souci soccer club getting $50,000 awarded to it for a building that was already not only built but also officially open in San Souci—which is hardly the multicultural capital of New South Wales—when we didn't get anything for any of our local clubs that are doing things with kids from multicultural backgrounds.
If we want to get serious about settlement, it doesn't mean just pushing pieces of paper around; it means getting people focused on becoming—and being allowed to become—full members of our community. And it's not just about jobs and housing; it's also about providing kids with the opportunity to advance. This is something that the government have seriously missed in the way they went about the allocation of money, particularly with the sports rorts. We can do those things better. We have an obligation to do those things better in a country that we can proudly say is the most multicultural country in the world. And no greater successful multicultural example of that is my electorate of Fowler.
I rise to resoundingly reject the premise that the member for Scullin has put to this parliament in this matter of public importance that there is a failure of the government to stand up for multicultural Australia. I find it quite shocking, actually, because, when I speak to members from the other side when we are at community events or citizenship events, we are all in it together. It is amazing how people are very happy to stand with us on a stage and hold hands and fly flags—and we're all in it together—but then we come to this chamber and it just disappears. I really can't understand it. I do realise that the opposition find it difficult to find gaps in what we on this side of the chamber are doing, but I cannot understand why they would choose this particular topic.
We have heard from the other side how successive Labor governments have done things for multicultural Australia. And I too can talk about a long list of things that our side has done for multicultural Australia. In fact, I am incredibly proud that the very first member for Higgins, Harold Holt, who was also Prime Minister, was actually the architect of dismantling the White Australia policy. There are many things that we on this side of the House can list. But we in fact believe that there should be a bipartisan approach to multiculturalism. We believe that it is very important that we all stand for all Australians. It is wonderful to hear some members on that side who actually agree and understand that premise. In fact, as the member for Scullin actually said, the Prime Minister articulated that it's important that we see Australia as 'us' and that we are not divided in that.
As a paediatrician who has worked in the community for a long time, for many years—I hate to admit how long, because it suggests how old I am—I know that it is always important to see everyone based on their merit and to understand that everyone is equal and that we're all in this together and that we should all be supporting each other. But I do need to point out that, unfortunately, at the last election, there were migrants within my community who said to me that they didn't believe in the policies of Labor. So we're talking here about a policy concept that was not helpful to those who've come to this country for a better life.
A man from a Greek background said to me—just like one of the previous speakers said—that, in the past, they felt that Labor was there for their family because they believed when they came to this country that Labor would give them a good start to life. But they said to me that, at this last election, the policies that Labor was presenting to the election would actually work against their ability to get a go and get ahead. They said, 'We have a long line of Greek migrants who have come to this country to have a better life, and all of us are going to vote for the coalition at the 2019 election.' They said this is because the Labor government believes in a housing tax, a retiree tax, a tax on trusts, a tax for those who work hard and want to get ahead. They said, 'The reason we came to this country was for a better life for ourselves, for our families, and we weren't going to see that with the policies that were on offer by those on the other side.' And they did believe—and I believe that they believe for the right reasons—that our way of governing is to help those who want to help themselves.
As I go about my business in the community in Higgins, I'm always delighted to be involved in so many different multicultural events. I go to every single citizenship ceremony that I can possibly attend when I'm not here in parliament. That includes four different councils. The citizenship ceremonies are one of the most wonderful things you can do as a local member. At citizenship ceremonies I always start by welcoming everyone who is here and celebrating those who have had the long journey to get here to Australia. I can see in the gallery people from various backgrounds who I'm hoping are supportive of a multicultural, diverse and tolerant Australia, but I always say to them, 'Please, we welcome the cultures, the faith, the families, the values that you bring to our country, because we think Australia is a better country for the richness, for the diversity, for the tolerance that you bring with you when you come to our country.' I think Australia is without doubt, having lived and worked overseas in many different country, the best country in the world with regard to multiculturalism, to religious diversity and to acceptance of the diverse and varied nature of humanity. (Time expired)
Multiculturalism isn't just a quaint term for trendy lefties or woke inner-city hipsters. It's a term that describes the reality of modern-day Australia. We are a country with an ancient Indigenous inheritance and a contemporary multicultural society built on waves of migrants who have come here and continue to come here as part of our nation-building enterprise. We can't just, therefore, pay lip service to multiculturalism, because it's about real people, and real people have needs and aspirations. We can't get away with telling or multicultural communities how great we think they are and how much we value their contribution each time we visit their festivals and then come up here and fail to do anything meaningful beyond that.
If we're a successful, cohesive democracy today, it's because previous governments have shown leadership on multicultural policy. They have shown leadership and enacted reform in policy areas around social inclusion, tackling racism and aiding the integration process through the appropriate settlement policies and equal access to citizenship. It hasn't always been the case, however, in recent times. The coalition government in the last seven years had adopted policies that have failed multicultural Australia, especially around citizenship and immigration policies that have created divisions in the community, making people feel alienated, excluded and not welcomed.
The Scanlon Foundation in their 2019 survey indicated to us all that 85 per cent of Australians agree with the proposition that multiculturalism has been good for Australia. Why then can't this government and this Prime Minister adopt and champion what the people of Australia are saying? As a community we've had to step up to fill the void created by lack of government leadership. But it's not enough. Australia needs the leadership of this government to protect the social cohesion of our community.
All you have to do is ask my local community. I know too well the pressure my local Muslim community has been under in the last 18 years—the racist abuse and the taunts they have suffered, their loyalty to Australia questioned. Young Muslim Australians have said to me that they feel as though they have grown up—and indeed they have—in the shadow of Islamic terrorism and they have been stigmatised by it almost for life.
In the last parliament the Joint Standing Committee on Migration conducted an inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes. The government chair chose to try and make the inquiry about African gangs instead, specifically targeting the Sudanese community. The Labor members on this committee issued a dissenting report because we were more concerned about examining the settlement needs of young people and how we can best shape them to assist young people from emerging communities find their way and develop a sense of belonging instead of being marginalised and stigmatised.
In my electorate, I have the largest settlement of refugees from Iraq and Syria, so it's imperative for our settlement services to be directly relevant to their needs. In fact, I've spoken many times in this place about the problems that they are facing in relation to their settlement experience.
Despite what it says, this government has failed in this very critical policy area, time and time again, by responding with programs that just don't work and that are a significant cost to the Australian taxpayer. The Shergold report itself highlights the concerning failure of important programs, such as the Adult Migrant English Program, and jobactive services in supporting social and economic participation. I've got countless examples in my electorate of the effect of this failure.
A highly trained Iraqi facial-reconstruction surgeon who resides in my electorate was sent by jobactive providers to stack shelves in Coles—in the fridge section—much to his dismay. This is just one example. In a room with 500 Iraqi and Syrian constituents, I asked if any one of them had been placed in a job to put up their hand. Not one person put their hand up. If this doesn't concern us I don't know what will. They continue to tell me that the demands of the Adult Migrant English Program are always clashing with the demands of jobactive to attend interviews and to basically get themselves ticked off for jobs that they will never, ever get. There is no flexibility.
The new business model introduced by the government in 2017 for the Adult Migrant English Program was found by the Scanlon Foundation— (Time expired)
I would like to thank the member for Scullin and the rest of the Australian Labor Party for their sudden interest in multicultural Australia. I honestly do welcome their input, but I do find the timing of their interest curious. Not too long ago, after an election loss, the ALP released a review into their electoral fortunes. Headings like 'Engagement with voters from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds' are used to discuss how they can win more votes. Let me put it plainly for the opposition: multicultural communities are more than voting blocs; they are unique communities with their own ambitions, worries and backgrounds. My message to the ALP is simple: treat these communities like people, not like votes.
I'm fortunate to represent the division of Chisholm, which is home to many different multicultural communities. I love spending time with community leaders and their organisations, and putting in the work listening to their needs. This local, on-the-ground, face-to-face work is what is needed to stand up for multicultural Australia. The ALP can grandstand and move all the motions they like on this issue, but until they do the work they simply won't get it.
Migrant communities have added so much to Australia. In times of need, like the recent bushfires, these communities stood side by side with other Australians. Buddhist monks gave massages to exhausted volunteers; Sikhs delivered food, water and other essentials; the Ukrainian community raised over $60,000 for the Red Cross; the Islamic Museum in Victoria donated 10 per cent of their ticket stubs to the CFA—and the list goes on and on. It is these communities that Labor ignores and, even worse, attacks, and I'll tell you how. When our multicultural communities are going through a tough time, as many Chinese Australians are now, what do the Australian Labor Party do? They waste time on political stunts and talking about issues that are only important to the Canberra bubble.
These communities are worried about their businesses or going out and having a meal, and Labor simply doesn't care. The Morrison government stands up for multicultural Australia every day in this House. When the Morrison government extends the instant asset write-off, it is the small mum-and-dad businesses run by immigrant couples that benefit. Our local Chinese restaurants can now buy the new equipment they need. When the coalition government overseas the creation of 1.5 million jobs, it makes it easier for an immigrant to find their first entry-level job. When the Morrison government provides tax relief, it is the hardworking multicultural Australians who benefit. We are reducing tax on small businesses to 25 per cent, and this is standing up for multicultural Australia. What does Labor want to do instead? They want to tax these communities into the ground. One-third of small businesses in Australia are the owned by migrants. When Labor attacks small business, they attack our multicultural migrant communities.
The Australian Labor Party, as we all know, are in lockstep with the union movement. The Australian union movement isn't renowned for their welcoming attitudes to migrant communities. If Labor wants to start standing up for multicultural Australia, they can start by standing up against the union movement, something we all know they are incapable of doing. Labor has some great advocates for multiculturalism, like Senator Tony Sheldon from New South Wales. Prior to entering parliament, he warned companies not to Asian-ise their workforces. His comments were so good that Labor made him a senator. Labor will hide their true feelings about multiculturalism in the Senate and grandstand in this House. It is the Morrison government standing up for— (Time expired)
In the late eighties it was John Howard who suggested in this place that Australia should reduce Asian immigration, and the Prime Minister at that time was a man by the name of Bob Hawke. Bob immediately went on the attack, because in Bob's Australia racism was called out each and every single time it reared its ugly head. Before Bob went on the attack, he was advised by one of his political advisors who said: 'Maybe the Australian public is actually with Mr Howard. Maybe the Australian majority is actually with Mr Howard, and we should think about whether or not we support Mr Howard's suggestion that we should restrict Asian immigration.' Bob said: 'Then tell me what I need to say to correct the record and to make them believe that we shouldn't do this. Tell me what I need to say to turn the Australian people around.' That was Bob Hawke's Australia. That's the Australia that I was proud to be brought up in, and the minister for multicultural affairs couldn't clean the shoes of Bob Hawke, with his latest attitude and the way in which he's handled multicultural affairs.
Bob Hawke would never, in this environment and in this time, put a Facebook post up saying that disgusting Asian markets are somehow to blame for the current predicament we're in, and, 'When will they learn?!' 'When will they learn?!' says the minister for multicultural affairs. 'When will they learn?!' says the man who is meant to protecting the multicultural fabric of our nature. Bob Hawke wouldn't have done that. Bob Hawke would've called it out and said, 'In this time it is our responsibility to lead; it is not our responsibility to divide Australians.' But that is what this minister for multicultural affairs does. In an MPI, he couldn't even do the decent thing and turn up to talk about why his portfolio is important and about what he's doing to protect the multicultural fabric of our country.
Instead, the minister for multicultural affairs ran a whole campaign about African gangs. I know it because we fought it in the last Victorian election. He took sides with the Victorian leader Matthew Guy to run a law-and-order campaign, not about crime and crime statistics, but about demonising minorities in Victoria. That's what the history of the minister for multicultural affairs shows. That's what is continuing now with his divisive Facebook posts.
Unfortunately, it's not just the minister for multicultural affairs who has a record in this place on that side. During the previous parliament, while I wasn't a member in this place, I watched it carefully. The record of those opposite was not something to be proud of. When Fraser Anning gave his 'final solution' speech on immigration, he wasn't greeted with boos and denied by those opposite. Each and every Liberal and National senator shook that man's hand and said, 'Congratulations.' Congratulations for his filthy speech! I understand that perhaps they then went on to say, 'It was a mistake to vote with Pauline Hanson's "It's okay to be white" motion,' but what a mistake that was. What a mistake it was to not have the absolute automatic instinct to say: 'Under no circumstances would we put our name to a motion that says "It's okay to be white". Under no circumstances would we even comprehend that we may vote for something like that.' What a mistake that was!
Of course, it continues. Only last week, almost a year since the Christchurch massacre, the director-general of ASIO got up and made a speech that I think was an important speech in this nation. He called out and said that we face the rising threat of far-Right extremism in this country. Instead of acknowledging that threat, instead of standing by the director-general of ASIO, what did the Minister for Home Affairs do? He said, 'Well, there's right-wing extremism, but then there's also Islamic extremism, which is left-wing extremism.' Senator Fierravanti-Wells said it offends conservatives. Damn right, it should! It should offend conservatives because in this nation we have a growing tide of anti-Semitism and of Islamaphobia, and they need to call it out.
It is times like this in this country when we need a multicultural affairs minister who is not here to demonise African gangs, who is not here to pick on defenceless young man who need support. We need a multicultural affairs minister who, like Bob Hawke, calls it out at every single term. We need a multicultural affairs minister who doesn't put up Facebook pages ready to divide the nation. We need a multicultural affairs minister who acts like one.
As the son of proud Italian migrants, amongst my first words in this place was an opportunity to quote a migrant himself, Nick Cater. Nick Cater in his publication The Lucky Culture talks about deliverance. He said, 'Migrants come to the country not for deliverance but to deliver.' What I get really upset about in this place is the propensity for those opposite to think they have a monopoly on two things. One is compassion. They're the party of compassion, as if they have some sort of lock hold on that. The other thing is that they're the party of multicultural Australia. Rubbish! I'm not saying it's rubbish; the people of Australia said it was rubbish at the last election. Don't take me as an authority on this. It speaks to why we are having this MPI today.
Many multicultural communities drifted to the coalition last year, forcing Labor to rethink its multicultural policies. That's what's happening here. Labor has established, under the leadership of the member for Cowan, a new Labor caucus committee focused on rebooting their efforts in multicultural Australia. As someone who comes from multicultural Australia, whose parents don't speak English that well and who has lived in a community that doesn't have English as a second language, can I tell you: we're Australian, we want to be treated as Australians and we know what is important. Our aspirations are important, and we don't want to be lectured about what it is to be Australian by those opposite. We don't want to be told that the only great prime minister for multicultural Australia was Bob Hawke. I remind those opposite that I think he would hang his head in shame with respect to the current membership of the Australian Labor Party.
I'm not the only one who has come to this view. George Lekakis AO, who is the former chair of the Victorian Multicultural Commission, was scathing in his attack on federal Labor's absence of a multicultural policy at the last election. I think his comments are very pertinent. He said:
Federal Labor lost its way with multicultural policy …
… … …
Photo opportunities with electorally important communities prior to elections are the order of the day …
A leader in the multicultural community in Australia is saying: 'Look, you've lost your way. Photo opportunities with multiculturally significant communities seems to be what you're about.'
We're not about that. We are about the aspirations of everyday, ordinary Australians: parents, people, citizens like my parents, who come to this country to deliver, not for deliverance. I could spend time talking about the grants that we've provided under the $71 million social cohesion package, the Fostering Integration Grants, which saw in my electorate a multicultural soccer festival and artworks at the community migrant resource centre. Can I say to those opposite: don't go hunting for votes in multicultural Australia. Work with them. Don't go fishing.
'That the House do now adjourn.' There are no relevance rules in the adjournment debate, so we can talk about whatever we want. Let's talk about that for a moment. The House may as well adjourn. There has been no point to being here for the last four weeks—no reason whatsoever. I have been elected for the last three and a half years. This has been the most pathetic, ridiculous session of parliament that I've endured.
That is a big call. We were here that time when the government lost control of the parliament in the last term because half their members just went off to airport and flew home. They didn't have enough members left to run the place. Then there was that great week when they knifed good old Malcolm. What happened to Malcolm? We never found out—he just disappeared. Remember that time that they hated each other so much that they couldn't even be in here together? So they just shut the parliament down. Then there were the popcorn weeks leading up to that, when they were killing each other.
But at least they had a purpose then. At least they had some legislation to debate. There were things they wanted to do for the country. We could come here representing our electorates, representing our values in the parties that brought us here, and have a debate about what the right thing for the country was. There is none of that anymore. This week they introduced two pieces of legislation, and we had 4½ days in this, the national parliament, debating the appropriation bill that everyone agrees with because it means the government pays its bills. That is it. That was the main purpose of the last two weeks. There has been not one division on a second reading debate in the last four weeks, because the only legislation the government is serving up and debating, frankly, is the ordinary drivel of government, the stuff the public service feeds up through the machine and says 'It's about time we changed a few words in this act', and off we go.
This is a debating chamber. It's the heart of democracy. The government is terrified of debate. Every time the Leader of Opposition gets on his feet to have a debate with the Prime Minister they use their numbers to shut him down, because the Prime Minister is terrified of a head-to-head debate. Indeed, the most common vote that the government members have taken, the most common motion they move, is to gag the opposition in a debating chamber.
I think that matters. There are problems in the real world. The economy is floundering. It has been weak for years. The government has no plans and no purpose. They have no plan for the economy, no plan for jobs, no plan for wages, no plan for climate change. The government's led by a guy who is a salesman, not a leader. We saw that when the country was burning. At the very moment we needed leadership he ran away and made a Liberal Party ad. He hid in Canberra and made a Liberal Party ad, politicising the defence forces, and day after day in question time he is too gutless to admit it.
Then of course there is the $2 billion bushfire fund. He is running around making ads about his bushfire fund, and we learn in Senate estimates that there is no bushfire fund. It doesn't exist. There is no bushfire recovery authority. It doesn't exist—it is a guy sitting in the Prime Minister's department. But he can't spin his way out of reality on the economy. We have now heard him all week desperately trying to get behind the coronavirus to avoid the blame for what is going on in the economy, to hide the fact that the economy is weak and floundering on his watch. He tries to pretend that he hasn't actually been there for seven years. 'I have only been the Prime Minister for a year. We're getting it together. We will find a purpose.' He was the Treasurer for most of the government's seven years. He can't avoid responsibility.
The member for Fenner used a great Warren Buffet quote: he said, 'When the tide goes out, you discover who has been swimming naked'. The government is being exposed. Economic growth is tanking. The last quarter's growth was lower than the previous quarter's growth. We heard today that the Prime Minister can't commit that we're not heading for a recession, the first in 29 years. Wages growth is the lowest ever on record under this government. Their response is: 'Let's cut more penalty rates; that will help'. Consumption is anaemic. Underemployment is now at a record high. Nearly two million Australians cannot get work or cannot get enough work. Under this government business investment, the key to improving productivity and the only thing that will really improve living standards, has fallen by 20 per cent since the Liberals were elected, and it's continuing to get worse.
They should just swallow their pride and accept the policy that Labor took to the last election—I bet they might bury that in their little stimulus. They started saying the word 'stimulus' this week. It's a good thing that they've finally recognised how weak the economy is. They could have listened to the Reserve Bank six months ago when it said, 'We need the government to do more.' They should listen to the Reserve Bank, swallow their pride and adopt Labor's policy around business investment tax breaks. They could do something about Newstart. They could bring forward the tax cuts. And they could stop fighting amongst themselves. (Time expired)
Out of the tragic loss of life, property, flora and fauna over this past summer we are seeing a renewed resolve for blunt realism about the challenges we face around a changing climate. Despite the scale of these challenges, when it comes to practical climate action I actually remain an optimist about what we can achieve, because, working together, we can find ways to meet these challenges, particularly if we mobilise capital from the private sector, because there are opportunities to do it and for people to make a profit.
Some argue that because Australia represents a small share of global emissions we should not take action. I've always found that a very bizarre argument, because taking responsibility actually goes to the core of why I'm a Liberal. We have a responsibility to steward a united society, strong economy and sustainable environment to the next generation. Responsibility ultimately is one of the core foundational pillars of being a Liberal. Australia can't solve global challenges alone, but if we don't take responsibility we cannot turn to others overseas and ask them to take action when we're not prepared to do so. That's why we are prepared to do so. In fact, responsibility is so core to being a Liberal as an important foundational pillar it's the sort of thing that motivates people to become one. Responsibility always begins at home. The notion is reinforced throughout our nation's history, where we've taken responsibility and met challenges. And we can do it again.
While the global challenge of climate change calls on us to show responsibility, it's also an enormous opportunity. Just consider some of the emerging industries, such as marine permaculture, also known as seaweed farming. Much like how land based plants sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions, seaweed draws in CO2 from the ocean. The difference is it grows 30 times faster. Consider the opportunity presented by Australia's vast and underutilised coastline. Seaweed farming could sequester millions of tonnes of CO2, drastically improving our emissions profile. To an enterprising mind this is an opportunity to steward nature, harness biology, decarbonise the ocean and, of course, make a buck. That is actually real climate action.
One of the great strengths of capitalism is its ability to freely reconfigure and swiftly adapt to changing needs, directly responding to consumers. In the last decade we have seen markets adapt quite swiftly. Now the challenge is to mobilise capital, to make sure that it can be part of the solution. In the energy generation space, two bedrocks of capitalism—price theory and the profit motive—have redirected some US$2.6 trillion into renewable energy and away from other types of fuels. Renewables such as wind, solar and hydroelectric plants are attracting triple the level of investment of fossil fuels. This was not caused by government direction or dictation, as our political opponents would wish, but from private companies reallocating resources to reflect the needs and values of society and the environment, thereby avoiding waste and loss. Climate change will not be solved by Soviet-era government planning like five-year plans. We've seen this before. But this is not accepted by everyone. All the Labor Party want is a central solution that they run and dictate, and some Independent members want that as well. In fact, they want to take it out of the hands of democratically elected officials. The only consequence of that will inevitably be a backlash, if you have not learnt anything from history.
There are some within our society, like Extinction Rebellion, whose radical green populist agenda is more focused on overthrowing capitalism than on taking the steps and challenges to confront climate change. And there will always be those wanting more unchecked state power—for themselves—calling for green new deals and for coal mining to stop tomorrow. They would rather indulge in idealistic fantasies than focus on actually achieving sustainable policy outcomes. That is what we believe on this side of the chamber.
As private citizens and enterprise can act, so too can government, of course. Crucially, we are actually doing what we need to do. We are delivering on our Paris targets with domestic action. We've put $1.4 billion into Snowy Hydro because of its strategic location, dramatically increasing the amount of renewable base load energy available to households as the battery of the nation. The $2 billion invested in the Australian Renewable Energy Agency provides funding for R&D in areas where Australia can compete globally such as biofuels, marine energy generation and energy storage—a sector-by-sector approach. And of course we have the CEFC, with $10 billion into projects in renewable energy. As the Prime Minister has noted, these federal initiatives to confront climate change will evolve over time as new technologies become available in the best interests of Australia.
On Saturday 28 March, Queenslanders will head to vote in their local government elections. On the same day, the state electorate of Bundamba will have their by-election. The electorate of Bundamba encompasses suburbs in the east and south-east of the City of Ipswich local government area. Major locations include Bundamba, Blackstone, Goodna, Redbank Plains, parts of Augustine Heights and Springfield. It's a terrific community and one that I am proud to represent. On Saturday 28 March, I will be supporting and endorsing the Labor candidate for Bundamba, Lance McCallum. Lance has a proud history of fighting for a fair go for working people.
This is an important by-election because we know a vote for the LNP is a vote for One Nation and a vote for One Nation is a vote for the LNP. It reminds me to address to the House that under the Newman government, particularly in our community, we saw some of the most savage cuts and sackings of public servants across Queensland. One hundred and twenty-four frontline health workers lost their jobs in Ipswich, forcing nurses and doctors to do more with less and putting patient safety at risk. The LNP when they were last in government delivered no new funding for road upgrades in Ipswich and cut $10.8 million from local road projects, including 140 road maintenance crews in our areas who lost their jobs. School land was sold off and nursing homes were closed. Perhaps the most scandalous event of the Newman government was the health minister at the time closing the Barrett Adolescent Youth Centre. This had profound affects for our community. I was so proud that the Premier of Queensland intervened to reverse that decision and two weeks ago, reopened the new Barrett Adolescent Centre.
We saw cuts to legal aid and cuts to the Skilling Queenslanders program, which helped long-term unemployed members of the community get back into work. Across Queensland 2,100 TAFE staff were sacked, 4,400 health jobs were lost and 500 teachings positions were cut. They sacked school nurses and cut $600 million from roads funding. They cut vital frontline services.
I know that Lance McCallum is a fighter for our community. I know that Lance stood up to Campbell Newman when he was in government and he will stand up to the LNP. We know they have one plan for Queensland: to cut, sack and sell our essential assets. On 28 March, I will be proudly supporting Lance McCallum to make sure that our community has a strong voice in the Palaszczuk government.
On 28 March, I will also be supporting Rachel Hoppe, our hardworking candidate for the Jamboree Ward. Rachel is a long-term local who has devoted her life to helping others. I know this because I have worked with Rachel for the past three years as the federal member for Oxley. Alongside our hardworking state member, Jessica Pugh, Rachel understands what the Centenary Suburbs need. She will bring experience and determination to protect our way of life and a plan to tackle traffic congestion and will work hard as part of our strong local community team.
We know the LNP in Brisbane City Council is tired and out of touch and has run out of ideas. We see more money being spent on advertising and glossy brochures than frontline services. Just this week we saw an underspend of $1.15 million by the LNP in Brisbane on vital services like treating mosquitoes across our city. The Centenary Suburbs in Brisbane have been forgotten under this LNP council. I am proud to support Patrick Condren, our Labor lord mayoral candidate, who will restore frontline services and make sure our suburbs are not forgotten. Rachel Hoppe, as part of Pat's team, will make sure our broken footpaths will be fixed. Seven hundred footpaths will be repaired. There will be $1 million to repair broken potholes across the city and to see extra bus services provided right across our city.
In the election for Brisbane it is critical that we see a Labor administration delivering for our suburbs, delivering for our community. I know that Rachel Hoppe has the determination and the plans to get more for our suburbs, and I'll be backing her all the way on 28 March.
I rise to speak on the Melbourne Airport Rail Link project in Victoria. This project has been in the design phase. We've been talking about this project for over 50 years. Victoria is at a very important stage of this very crucial infrastructure project. It is trying to make the decision as to what type of project it is that the Victorian state Labor Party provides to the people who are going to use airport rail link. Quite simply, we only have one freeway connecting Melbourne's CBD to the airport, and the Victorian government's claimed it wants to provide a new airport link for Victoria's future.
The preferred project sees a designated tunnel leaving Melbourne CBD to Sunshine, and from Sunshine a new line on a designated track heading out to the airport. This should be $20 for 20 minutes. This should be able to be a fantastic project offering our overseas and interstate travellers a brilliant link between our amazing world-class airport and one of the world's most liveable cities, Melbourne.
What we are seeing the Victorian government doing—because they seem to have run out of money on a whole range of other projects that they're building around Melbourne at the moment—is try to find a cheap and nasty solution for airport rail link. They want to abandon a designated tunnel going from the CBD to Sunshine. They want to put the airport rail link back in with all of the other metropolitan rail systems. This is going to see that first three or four minutes expanded out to 13 or 14 minutes—an additional nine minutes just in that first stage of getting the train and the travellers out to Sunshine. This is going to clog up an already congested system the moment it is built, let alone in the future.
It's not just the travellers who are going to the airport that have the opportunity to either gain or lose with this project. If the government builds this project right, with a designated tunnel to Sunshine and then a new designated line above soil to the airport at Tullamarine, it also has the ability to introduce these amazing passages into the city for all of our regional cities. Certainly, Geelong and beyond Geelong to Warrnambool and Portland have the opportunity to benefit from the state government doing this project right. Bendigo, Ballarat and Echuca also have the opportunity to benefit if the government does this project right. Shepparton and Wangaratta, Wodonga and Albury—they have the opportunity to benefit. They've been left behind. These cities have been left behind by a Labor government that has refused to invest in rail technology and rail services for the last 20 years. So, whilst Bendigo and Ballarat have 24 and 28 services every day and Geelong has 30-odd, Shepparton has four. Wodonga and Albury, and Wangaratta, similarly, are very poorly serviced into Melbourne. The new rail link has the opportunity to fix this. It has the opportunity to play a role in fast trains to Geelong, something that has been thought about and talked about very extensively. Quite simply, the Victorian Labor government has a very important choice.
What must also be said is that the federal government put $5 billion on the table for this project, right at the start. In fact, the federal government dragged the Victorian government forward in this project because the Victorian government kept pushing it away saying, 'It's too hard.' It was the $5 billion that the federal government put on the table that forced the Victorian government to come along and get involved in this. When those two parties got together, the Victorian government and the federal government, they agreed that the best way to get this project built was a designated tunnel from the CBD out to Sunshine. Now they want to abolish that.
I have never been contacted by so many councils, or so many committees—for Bendigo, Ballarat, Echuca, Moama, Shepparton, Melbourne. All of the major councils are writing to the politicians reinforcing their view that the Victorian Labor Party build the right project. Here's an opportunity to put something in place that will benefit Victoria for the next hundred years, or they could make that system worse for the next hundred years. It's a great opportunity to look after train travellers in the west, train travellers to the airport and train travellers to all those regional cities that have the opportunity to benefit.
In our role as MPs we're very fortunate to meet so many inspirational people. Today I'm going to speak about one of them from my electorate, a truly amazing and inspirational woman. Her name is Rebecca Hogan, known as Bec. I first met Bec in 2018. She came to see me about a program she was initiating for young men and women in years 11 and 12 who were living in both the Tweed and Byron shires. The idea grew into the BASE Youth Leadership organisation and the associated BASE awards. Bec's drive and enthusiasm is very contagious, and I knew straightaway that she would make this project happen. I was really excited to be a part of the program and a sponsor for it.
At the time, Bec also approached many individuals, community organisations and small businesses, and many were very quick to sponsor and support this great initiative. At the time, there was a lot of momentum building around this idea. Bec is a former teacher and she created the not-for-profit BASE Youth Leadership program after recognising a lack of opportunity and training for our emerging leaders on the New South Wales North Coast. BASE is a program that Bec developed to foster leadership skills in young people who are just about to finish high school. After many years as an educator, Bec said that she was driven to action by the challenges she saw young people facing in our hyper-connected world. To quote Bec:
I think people need to be connected to other people, not only to promote themselves in a business sense, but also in a meaningful way. I want to encourage young people to be socially conscious leaders.
BASE does this by encouraging and empowering young women and young men to become leaders who can make a real and meaningful contribution to our society.
Bec has built this organisation from the ground up. Her efforts are now allowing young people to be recognised, guided and mentored to strive for excellence in their local communities. Bec's commitment brought it all together in establishing the inaugural BASE Youth Leadership Awards. Bec organised 10 judging panels comprising local business representatives and sporting, civic and professional leaders within the community. She also organised two separate events for the awards, one for the women's finalists and one for the men's finalists. She also had a whole range of inspirational speakers at both of these events. The inaugural awards for young women were held on International Women's Day, 8 March 2019, and was a huge success. I was very pleased to attend and open the event. There were so many wonderful young women recognised that day. It's a real testament to Bec's efforts that so many young women have benefited from her mentorship and direction. The event was hosted by the amazing Mandy Nolan. She is a local icon who is an incredible comedian and presenter and a truly inspirational woman. It's great to see that Mandy is hosting this year's awards, too.
The BASE program is centred on an awards program and leadership training. Program participants are also invited to attend BASEcamp, where they learn about everything from creating good first impressions to designing a digital profile and applying to university. They learn a series of social, business and life skills. Bec Hogan has realised her vision of a program that supports and recognises our local young leaders and the contribution they make to our community.
Earlier this year, Bec's contribution to our community was recognised. She received the Tweed Shire Council Citizen of the Year award. It was very well-deserved. Bec's award was specifically in recognition of her outstanding contribution to our community and to the young people of the region by creating BASE. The ongoing role and goal of BASE is to identify and celebrate year 11 and year 12 students in their respective areas of excellence and to support them in their future endeavours. It also includes scholarships from Southern Cross University. I encourage young people in our region to get involved in some of these future rounds. It's a great experience.
Bec has built a movement which empowers young future leaders to be recognised and mentored, to achieve great things and to reach their potential. By investing in and connecting young leaders with networks, organisations and resources that can bolster their efforts to enact positive change, we're all supporting a much brighter future for everyone. Following on from the success of the 2019 awards, I'm very much looking forward to attending and opening the 2020 BASE awards. The 2020 awards recognise achievements in the following categories: community service and citizenship award; youth spirit award; sports award; creative arts and performing arts award; and academic and leadership award.
Congratulations to all those who have participated in BASE and all those young people who have applied. I'd like to encourage young people in my community to apply and get involved with the BASE awards so we can all support them in their future endeavours. Congratulations to Bec and everyone who has applied for those BASE awards. To all those winners, keep up the great work.
I was going to give this speech last week, but it got pushed to today. The speech I was going to give is now unusable, as in the last few days coronavirus has appeared in a number of places in Bennelong. These cases have been a local doctor at the Ryde Hospital and a nurse who had been employed at the Baptist aged-care home in Macquarie Park for over two decades. She has now presented with symptoms. Subsequently, we became aware that she has been in contact with 13 patients. We also know that a female in her 70s and a male in his 80s have now been diagnosed with the condition and have been transferred to hospital. Tragically, a 95-year-old lady has passed away. Our hearts go out to the lady's family and to all the workers and residents at this centre who have been, sadly, impacted by this tragedy. I would also like to commend the community for their response. We cannot fully control where the virus will spring up, but, on all accounts, the management and staff of the BaptistCare centre and of Ryde Hospital have been exemplary, and all practical measures that can be taken have been—and were done promptly and efficiently. I visited both centres on a number of occasions, and I'm delighted to see that they have maintained their high level of care at this trying time.
Despite these outbreaks, there is something important to remember. If you do not have the disease and are not at risk, there is absolutely no reason to change your usual routine at this stage. Keep going to work, keep going out to eat and keep going to the shops and, please, stop buying toilet paper! Notwithstanding this, I would like to read a brief statement that the member for Reid and her team have put together and which will soon be translated into a number of languages. If you are concerned about the disease, the following statement forms the basis of the best advice we have on how to contain this disease together:
Our community is already being impacted by COVID-19 (Coronavirus), and I wanted to convey the latest information from the Chief Medical Officer and the Department of Health.
I want to reassure you that, whilst we are not immune from COVID-19, we are very well prepared as a country.
A number of cases have been identified around Sydney and, in particular, in our area, so it is important to be aware of the best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Practice good hygiene, such as frequent hand washing, using hand sanitisers, coughing or sneezing into your elbow, and avoiding shaking hands. This should not be replaced by kissing.
People should monitor for symptoms such as fever, coughing, shortness of breath or tiredness. If you are unwell or concerned that you may have been exposed to COVID-19, you should self-isolate and call your GP for advice before you visit your doctor. Please do not go to public places. Do not go to your doctor's waiting room and wait there. Call first.
If you have recently returned from or transited through China or Iran or another high-risk country or region in the last 14 days, you must self-isolate for 14 days from the time of your departure from that country.
If you have been in close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19, you must self-isolate for 14 days from the date of your last contact with the confirmed case.
Human-to-human transmission has been detected in Australia, so even if you have not travelled, please exercise caution.
Some groups are more vulnerable to COVID-19 than others, including the over 65s and people with pre-existing health conditions, particularly autoimmune diseases or respiratory issues. If you or a family member fall into this category, use extra caution and ensure that all members of the family are practising good hygiene.
A 24/7 national coronavirus health information line is available on 1800 020 080 for health and situation information on the COVID-19 outbreak.
Make sure you follow the most up-to-date advice of the Chief Medical Officer or the Department of Health.
It is important that our whole community is aware of the risks of COVID-19.
Please ensure this information is shared with your family and friends, particularly those who may not have access to information online or through other sources.
House adjourned at 17 : 00
Today I raise two human rights matters. The first relates to the ongoing persecution of people of the Bahai faith in Iran, where an estimated 300,000 Bahai followers form the largest of the minority religions. Amongst other restrictions, Bahais continue to be dispossessed of their property and possessions, and face barriers in accessing education and employment. Recently the Iranian government changed its process so that applicants of the Iranian national smart ID card are now required to identify with only one of four religions. Bahai is not one of the recognised religions, which effectively denies Bahai followers the ID card. Without the ID card, daily activities such as gaining a work permit, obtaining a driver's licence and making a banking transaction are practically impossible. I asked the foreign minister to raise this matter with Iran and urge Iran to reverse the ID smart cart application process so that Iranians of Bahai faith are not discriminated against and excluded from their own society.
The second matter relates to over a century of persecution, suppression, discrimination and brutality of Palestinian people. The Palestinian people have battled unfairness since 1917 when the British imposed the one-sided Balfour Declaration upon them. Attempts even now are being made to prevent Palestinians from taking any actions against Israel in the International Court of Justice. The recent intervention by US President Trump jointly with the Israeli government to redraw the Palestinian and Jewish settlement lands without any input or consultation with the Palestinian people highlights the arrogance of the current US-Israeli leadership, their dismissive attitude towards the Palestinians and disregard for international law. This follows President Trump's recognition of the whole of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and ending Palestinian refugee funding programs. Now after decades of conflict and oppression, the Trump proposals would further restrict Palestinians to a series of enclaves totally surrounded by Israeli land with no borders with the outside world or control over its air space or water. No reasonable person would accept such a proposition and nor do the Palestinian people.
I call on the Australian government to uphold international law and universal human rights and urge the adoption of a fair and just two-state solution that is respectful of both the Palestinian and the Jewish people. The Palestinian people have suffered enough. They have no country of their own, no independence, no control over their future, no freedoms, no rights and a shrinking land area with no light at the end of the tunnel, whilst most of the rest of the world looks the other way.
I want to wish Norco, my local dairy processor, a happy 125th birthday. That is right—Norco is celebrating 125 years this year. They have been part of my Northern Rivers wider community since 1895. Norco is a 100 per cent Australian farmer-owned cooperative. Many other dairy processors have disappeared or been sold out, but not our Norco. They have over 200 dairy farmers who supply them. They employ hundreds of locals in their processing plants. I'm proud that we as a government have offered them a grant of $15 million as part of their $30 million expansion of their ice-cream facility in Lismore. Happy birthday, Norco! I thank everyone who buys Norco products for supporting a farmer-owned cooperative.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognise Ray Reid, who sadly passed away late last year. Ray met the love of his life, Ivy, at a dance in Woodenbong. He was devoted father and father-in-law of Graeme and Chris, Beth and Barry, Janice and Tony, Carol and David, and Debbie. He had 16 grandchildren and 25 great-grandchildren. Despite his busy life with the farm and the family, he was a very community-minded man, Ray. He was involved in countless local organisations, had many executive positions on them. He was on the P&C for the entire time his children attended the school, and much longer. He was a valued member of the Rodeo Club, the Progress Association, the Australia Day committee, the Woodenbong Show Society, the Northern Districts exhibit and the Legume to Woodenbong Road committee. Ray was a very special person. Whenever you saw him, he had this smile—it was like a mischievous grin. You couldn't help but smile and laugh when around him. Rest in peace, Ray.
Deputy Speaker, I would like to acknowledge Nikita Braine and Nick Alford, who have been named Junior Surf Life Savers of the Year on the North Coast for the 2019-20 season. Nikita is a member of the Red Rock-Corindi Surf Life Saving Club. She attended an under-14s development camp last November and then recently undertook a panel-style interview when she was selected and awarded this title. Nick is a member of the Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club. He won the prestigious Coffs Harbour Ocean Swim last year, at the age of 13.
My electorate has long been known for producing some of the best junior life savers in not just the state but the country. Nikita and Nick will travel to Sydney for a state camp in April for the New South Wales selection. I wish them both the very best in this next stage. Congratulations to them.
It is depressing to say that high-quality broadband remains just as hard to obtain as it is necessary for the people of Fremantle and Western Australia. I am sure there are people all over Australia who take that view, because the government's not cheap, but nasty version of the NBN has been pretty bad everywhere. But there is no doubt that WA got the worst allocation of the multi-technology mess. The dud technology within the NBN is the copper based fibre-to-the-node and WA has received the largest share of all the states. Nearly 60 per cent of our line broadband is delivered with copper. In Queensland, it is 39 per cent. In New South Wales it is 34 per cent. In Victoria it is 26 per cent. There is absolutely no doubt that fibre-to-the-node is the worst-performing technology. In the last 12 months, the ACCC's speed testing of NBN services has found that a quarter of people on FTTN connections who are paying for high-speed 50 or 100 megabit per second services still don't receive anywhere near their full plans at any of the time, and 95 per cent of underperforming NBN services are FTTN connections.
Last week, Telstra announced it would no longer offer its 100 megabit per second package to any premises, business or residential, that had FTTN. That is essentially saying that 60 per cent of all premises—residential and business—in WA will never get seriously fast broadband. What is crystal clear is that fibre-to-the-node is the worst NBN technology and WA has been lumped with more copper than anyone else. What happens when the ACCC compares speeds across the states? Surprise, surprise—WA is stone-cold motherless last. We are the largest and the most remote state. We are removed from the rest of the country by geographical distance and by time difference. We watch as service headquarters and personnel get moved east and told, 'Just do it online. Just go to the website.' But when it comes to the technology infrastructure that is supposed to make distance irrelevant, we instead have been dealt a hand that puts us at a further and permanent disadvantage.
Never forget—never forget—that this government ditched the plan to deliver a fibre-rich network that would have given all Australians access to high-speed broadband now and into the future. Instead, this coalition government thought it was smart to base a broadband network on telephone cabling. What a brilliant idea. Let's develop a new technology network by basically reusing the old technology network—genius! You might as well decide to move from rail transport to air transport by gluing wings on a train. Has it been cheaper? No. Has it been delivered more quickly? No. Has it been rubbish? Absolutely it's been rubbish. Has it seen Australia, with the 13th largest economy in the world, find ourselves at No. 68 and falling on the broadband league table? Sadly, yes. WA has received the worst of it, not by accident, but by design.
I rise today to speak about an exciting and innovative expo that I am hosting for the first time in my seat of Higgins, on 17 April: the Climate Solutions Technical Expo. I am delighted that the federal , Angus Taylor, and the federal , Karen Andrews, will be launching the event. As a country with clever scientists, smart businesses and a willing citizenry we are already identifying new economic opportunities for Australia, particularly for energy and emissions reduction technologies, providing storage and backup in the electricity industry and transport sectors.
Through this inaugural Climate Solutions Tech Expo I want to help unleash the potential for Australia by bringing the emerging commercialised output of the technology and innovation world in energy and recycling together with my local community. As the slogan goes: think global, act local. This will be an opportunity for businesses in and around Higgins to demonstrate how their products fit into the global response to climate action and how each of us can take steps to respond to the global climate crisis.
The expo will showcase businesses like edge energy that has developed voltage capping technology that prevents oversupply of energy to properties, resulting in a reduction in both emissions and energy costs for households and businesses. Another is SmartSwitch, a start-up company just up the road from my electoral office. SmartSwitch has developed a smart power socket which automatically removes power for unused appliances and devices. Another is SecondBite in Higgins. Over the last 10 years SecondBite has rescued surplus food from across the retail network and distributed it free of charge to more than 1,300 local charities around the country, providing food relief to people who need it—a clever way to help significantly reduce food waste that contributes to 30 per cent of landfill. This is just one small contribution to the overarching work the Morrison government is doing on climate action.
The Morrison government knows that the way to meaningful reductions in global emissions will be driven by science and technology and Australia is ready. Even as we speak, the government's technology investment road map is being developed. A draft will be open for input very soon and I encourage all of you to engage in this process. The technology investment road map will complement the Morrison government's $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package.
The Climate Solutions Tech Expo is a free event at the Malvern Town Hall on Friday 17 April. I encourage all to come along to find out how they can contribute to emissions reduction each and every day.
With parliament sitting across the first four weeks of the school year in 2020 it has been a great pity that I have had to miss many school leadership ceremonies and inductions across the north side. It is a great pity for me because they are probably among my very favourite parts of the job. In the spirit of International Women's Day this Sunday, and celebrating the achievements of our women, I would like to take this opportunity at least to recognise and congratulate some of the very meritorious young women in my electorate of Lilley who have been inducted as school leaders for 2020.
In Aspley State School we have Kate Fraser and Arrabella Leach. In Brighton State School we have Zara Patterson and Naja Khan. In Boondall State School we have Francine Morris. In Craigslea State School we have Ruby Head, Olive jones and Talia Lanz. In Craigslea State High School we have Mikayla O'Flynn and Lillian Sampson. At Everton Park State School we have Tess Beaumont and Blake De Roode. At Nashville State School we have Francesca McAnte and Emily Butler. At St Anthony's Primary School in Kedron we have Vanessa Infanti and Olivia Loth. At St Kieran's Primary school up in Brighton we have Caitlin Peters. At Virginia State School we have Maleeka Shah and Madeline Eade. At Stafford State School we have Savannah Crispe. At Mary Mackillop College we have Poppy Clements and Maddison Wallis. At Mount Alvernia College we have Jeeva Ajimon and Sara Petroccitto. At Sandgate District State High School we have Amy Kubler and Madeleine Davies. At Geebung State School we have Sasha and Jessica. At Our Lady of the Angels' Catholic Primary School we have Maeve, Brianna, Brooke and Aniya. At Shorncliffe State School we have Emily and Kate. At Wavell State School we have Nadine, Alexia and Chelsea. Congratulations, girls. I am very proud of you all and looking forward to seeing you soon.
I would also like to recognise the trailblazing work of Lesley Hanson in honour of International Women's Day this Sunday morning. Lesley Hanson herself is a mother of three from Wavell Heights and the assistant Scout leader of the Wavell Heights Scout Group. In the 1970s Lesley was asked to be in a Scouts Queensland trial crew to 'see if women could be in scouting'. Lesley played a pivotal role in reshaping Scouts Queensland entirely from a male-dominated group to an organisation that sponsors young boys and young girls to develop confidence, resilience and leadership skills. In 1990 Lesley helped to create the Wavell Heights Scout Group, which still remains active today. Since then she has mentored more than 200 children in Wavell Heights. Lesley, thank you very much for your work in making Scouts a more inclusive and equal place for all of our young people and for all that you have done to mentor our young people across the north side. It is people like you, active citizens on the north side, that make our community so great. I'm very proud to honour you and your work this International Women's Day.
I thank the member for Lilley for her, as usual, excellent contribution to this chamber.
Honourable members interjecting—
I didn't mean that! That's going too far! I rise to speak on the important topic of freedom of political speech. Last year we learnt how a group called Sleeping Giants Oz targets advertisers in News Corp and Sky News, claiming it is trying to stop hate speech in the media by stopping its ad dollars. Sleeping Giants Oz craves anonymity because it fears exposure as being politically inspired and because it relies on deceiving advertisers about its real level of support. Multiple anonymous Twitter accounts are used to massively amplify its campaigns. In one case, fewer than 200 individual accounts were responsible for 53 per cent of a campaign Sleeping Giants ran against Sky News. As few as 10 of these accounts generated a total of 4,500 tweets in 45 days.
Last week, The Australian,using GetUp's ASIC filings, showed that 71 per cent of donations to GetUp was spent on salaries and administration, despite supporters being told that every dollar would be used on billboards, TV ads and rallies. Yet James Shipton and Daniel Crennan at ASIC do nothing about this. In response, GetUp has embarked on a bizarre campaign targeting Woolworths for the crime of advertising 'in the Murdoch press'. A GetUp email from someone called Alix had a Twitter link so recipients could let 'Woolworths know the power of the internet'. Alix—spelt A-L-I-X, indicating their capacity to spell is equal to their political judgement—also said a mobile billboard would protest outside Woolworths' head office, and later that day GetUp posted pictures of Paul Oosting outside Wooolworths with a billboard truck calling on Woolworths to stop funding 'climate denial'. But there were more protesters than just Paul—eight more. Real people power impact GetUp is bringing to this campaign! In one picture there is a girl in sunglasses with raised fist, looking like Che Guevara. She looks like—guess who—Alix, the GetUp campaigner who sent out the email about the protest. I know this because on Sunday Alix sent out another email with a picture of her without sunglasses next to Paul Oosting outside News Limited protesting salary transparency—I mean climate denial. This email claimed that GetUp's campaign had been a great success and Woolworths was 'responding'. It turns out this response was a post from Woolies saying— (Time expired)
I know that many people in my community would be feeling concerned about the spread of coronavirus. That's only natural. This week we saw the first domestic infections of the virus in Australia and the first death. The virus has now infected people in more than 60 countries, and we expect infection numbers to grow rapidly before they decline. But in Australia we enjoy world-class facilities and world-class medics. We currently have state and federal governments who are taking expert advice, and we are well prepared for any possible outbreak of the COVID-19 virus, so there's no need to panic.
As concerned as you might be, there is some good news about the virus. We're still learning about this virus, but, unlike the flu, it seems that transmission to children is very difficult, and the few children who have been infected around the world have shown only mild symptoms. What's more, the majority of adults also show mild symptoms, and many have already recovered.
But the virus is a serious threat, and there are some things that we can all do to help prevent the spread of the virus through our communities to protect those who are most vulnerable to it, particularly older Australians. Most obviously, wash your hands regularly and thoroughly with antiseptic soap—the full 20 seconds, not just a quick rinse—which is really what we should all be doing during any flu season. If you've recently returned from a country with an outbreak, like China, South Korea, Italy or Iran, and if you experience cold-like symptoms, please isolate yourself and seek medical advice. The government has established a hotline: 1800022222. This hotline is free to call and is open 24/7. Even if you haven't returned from overseas and you experience cold-like symptoms, try to isolate yourself. If you can work from home, do so. To bosses, I ask you to consider staff flexibility. To all of us, I suggest that we plan to check in with others in our community, by phone or internet if appropriate, especially elderly and otherwise vulnerable members of our community. Let's look after each other. There is no need for panic buys. We have seen runs on antiseptic hand gels and toilet paper. There is no need for this. If you have medical prescriptions, go and fill them out, but really there is no need to stockpile weeks of groceries and medicine. There is no need to panic.
Here is something else that we can do: we can refrain from sharing conspiracy theories. It's understandable that there is community concern, but this shouldn't be accelerated by the sharing of fake news. The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services is regularly issuing updates, and I recommend their website. The Chief Medical Officer, who is frequently advising the government, is also giving public updates. There are dependable news sources you can turn to for information. As you wash your hands, think of your consumption and sharing of information as an issue of hygiene. Together, we will all get through this. With courtesy, common sense and a world-class healthcare system. As the WHO has recently stated, we are not only confronting a viral pandemic, we are also confronting an infodemic, so think about the information you are sharing about the threat.
I have previously informed the House about the Bennelong Cup, an initiative I started almost a decade ago to provide all students in the community, irrespective of their cultural background, a sport which they could all share. As I have learnt from my long career in tennis, sport brings people together. It gives us an opportunity to meet with barriers removed, play with each other and build strong communities. In the years that we have held the Bennelong Cup, thousands of students from all age groups and backgrounds have participated. The Bennelong Cup showcases multiculturalism at its very best.
All of this is not possible without many hands behind the scenes. I previously informed the House about the exceptional efforts of Andrew Hill and Ted Davis of Table Tennis NSW. Their organisational abilities and superhuman energy before and during the competition has made it a success every year. Without them, we would not be able to run the competition.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Hyundai Motor Company, which is a longstanding friend of the Bennelong Cup. Back when we originally started the Bennelong Cup, we reached out to Hyundai to see if they would be willing to contribute to the provision of tables. Without hesitation, they took up the challenge and provided virtually every school in the electorate with table tennis tables, balls and bats. This new equipment provided students with thousands of hours to practice and have fun. As time passed, the original kit began to wear badly. Last year Hyundai once again stepped up and provided every school which requested replacement of equipment or repairs with their needs. Some 21 table tennis sets have been distributed across the many schools. This has once again enabled the students across the electorate to take up table tennis, hone their skills and enter the Bennelong Cup. Hyundai have at every crossroads been a generous and supportive partner to the Bennelong Cup. The competition simply could not occur at the scale or sophistication that it does without their assistance.
I would also like to thank Mr Paul Pinkewich and his company, Table Tennis World, who assisted with the rollout of these table tennis sets. Installing equipment across the electorate is no easy task, but he managed admirably, and I extend our thanks to him.
I am proud to say the Bennelong Cup will once again be going ahead this year, hopefully bigger and better than ever. I would implore members of the House to look in their own electorates and find ways to encourage grassroots sport. It is one of the best ways of equipping young students with teamwork, ambition and communication skills. It is truly an Australian way of making friends and having fun.
I'd like to draw the attention of the House to a petition that was submitted to the Petitions Committee by one of my constituents as the principal petitioner, Jelena Magic, whose three-year-old son Marco Magic suffers from a rare form of cancer known as neuroblastoma. The 5,620-strong petition calls on the government to improve access to breakthrough clinical trials in Australia or overseas and to better recognise the issues children and families affected by high-risk neuroblastoma are facing.
Clinical trial support and access to novel therapies have been lacking in paediatric oncology units across Australia. Children with this rare high-risk neuroblastoma face many months of intensive treatment but are also at high risk of relapse. Presently Australia doesn't have capability in preventive trials to reduce the chances of relapse, or less toxic antibody trials for relapsed neuroblastoma. Families therefore are forced to raise what are always significant funds, often in the hundreds of thousands, through crowdfunding and other sources, in order to access these vital trials overseas, in order to improve their children's chances of survival. The Medical Treatment Overseas Program excludes clinical trials from financial coverage due to the lack of evidence that is available for these particular trials. The PBS only lists drugs proven to be efficient for a particular cancer and only if the pharmaceutical company deems it economically wise to seek opportunities in the limited Australia market.
The petitioners wish to challenge the notion that the lack of evidence means the lack of efficacy. Presently, Australia is lagging behind the United States and Europe in terms of availability of breakthrough clinical trials and novel therapies for treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma that could be applied in the clinical setting. The petition requests the House to open the Medical Treatment Overseas Program to cover participation in overseas clinical trials when supported by the treating oncologist, as is the case with little Marco Magic and other children like him. The petition also calls on the Australian government to invest in Australia's participation in international trials and to assist oncology units across the nation to provide a wider range of therapeutic options to their patients, and calls on the government to implement methods to effectively manage the risk of accepting treatments with limited clinical evidence and adjust the system to be flexible to meet the needs of each individual patient.
Young Marco Magic will be hopefully heading off to the United States for life-saving clinical trials very soon. He is able to do this because his parents in particular, Jelena and Andrea, have fought very hard to save his life, but also because of the great contribution of the Australian public through the crowdfunding campaign that they, in conjunction with Rare Cancers Australia, waged recently.
I rise today to discuss an investment in Bald Hills that will help children with autism for decades to come. Tomorrow, I will be joining members of the AEIOU to open a new autism hub in Attunga Street, Bald Hills. This hub has been made possible by a $4.5 million investment by the Australian government through the Community Development Grants Program, alongside a donation of $129,621 by the AEIOU.
People with autism are crucial citizens within the Australian community. Their unique ideas, thoughts and contributions are welcomed and should not be ignored. What is most important is that their abilities and subsequent potential are being nurtured at an early age by world-class and accessible facilities.
I am happy to say that this is exactly what has been delivered. The new hub has multiple early-intervention classrooms that amplify the abilities of students with autism. Such rooms include a motor-skills room, seven consultation/telehealth rooms, a community meeting room with training facilities, and two external playground areas featuring appropriate facilities to foster learning. The centre began construction in February last year and started taking on students on 28 January this year. Forty-seven students have already enrolled.
Beyond those children and families who will be in direct contact with the centre, the hub will also see benefits that extend far beyond even my own electorate. The hub will allow important research, training and diagnostics work to be given central priority through the advanced research hub featured in the centre.
The new hub was desperately needed to replace a long-outdated facility. The previous facility serviced the community for over a decade, helping hundreds of families, but it also saw children with autism and their families forced to wait for up to 12 months to get access to essential services. The AEIOU told me of examples of families constantly having to travel for up to four hours to access other less crowded facilities, and that's why I welcome this important Australian government investment.
Most of us can empathise; raising children can be difficult at times. Sometimes without the right guidance and the right support the experience can become overwhelming, and this can be amplified with children with special needs. Projects like this new hub are essential to all Australians, and this will have a big impact on people's lives. I'm very proud that the Morrison government has delivered this.
Order. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has expired.
The front page of the Newcastle Herald this morning screamed 'bombshell'. The headline was a reference to the plan by the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, John Barilaro, and the Upper Hunter state MP, Michael Johnsen, to establish a nuclear power generator right there in the Upper Hunter, smack bang in the buffer zone of the Bayswater and Liddell power stations. The question becomes: did Michael Johnsen consult his local community? Of course the answer is no. Did Michael Johnsen, the local state MP, ask questions about the implications and consequences for our water supplies, the consequences for public safety or the consequences for our existing coal-fired generators? I can tell you now, a nuclear reactor in the Upper Hunter would mean the earlier closure of our coal-fired generators. Liddell, at 50 years of age, is just about out of puff, but the Bayswater Power Station will run for at least another 15 years, I hope. So too will Origin's Eraring Power Station further south.
Michael Johnsen told the Newcastle Herald this about his plan to put a nuclear generator in the Upper Hunter. He said:
The Upper Hunter is a good fit because of its extensive energy infrastructure …
This is how I know he's going to put it right alongside Liddell or Bayswater, right there on the grid, right there where he has the water—and, in his mind, right there where he has the workforce. But the nuclear power industry doesn't employ as many people as the coal-fired generation industry does. That's a basic fact, and surely Michael Johnsen understands that.
Now, in pushing for this nuclear reactor in the Upper Hunter, John Barilaro says the plan is about reducing emissions. What a revelation! I didn't think John Barilaro, the Deputy Premier, or indeed state member Michael Johnsen thought we had a problem with carbon emissions. I didn't think they believed that it was necessary to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country, consistent with our Paris commitments. And yet here they were yesterday, saying we need a nuclear generator in the Upper Hunter because we need to reduce our carbon emissions. Well, I can tell you it's a slightly different tune to the one they had been singing. I say to John Barilaro a couple of things. Firstly, if you insist on putting a nuclear generator in the Upper Hunter, explain who is going to fund it. Is the private sector funding it or is the New South Wales government going to substantially subsidise the establishment of this expensive—very expensive—nuclear generator? Is that the case? We don't know, and he needs to answer that question.
Secondly, I say to John Barilaro, and, indeed, Michael Johnsen: you have been in power in New South Wales for nine years. John Barilaro is no less than the Deputy Premier of New South Wales. He cannot be allowed to behave like a crossbencher or an opposition backbencher. He cannot be constantly complaining about the New South Wales government when he's very much part of the New South Wales government. He can't take the pay rise, the big car, the extra staff and all the labels that go with being the Deputy Premier and crow outside the parliament—and, indeed, inside the parliament—on a daily basis, in disagreement with his own Premier and his own government. The Premier herself now has to tell the Upper Hunter community and the regional community today what she thinks about Michael Johnsen's and John Barilaro's idea to put a nuclear reactor in the Upper Hunter. I'll be very, very keen to hear her response. And the local state member should spend more time concentrating on workforce issues in a positive way, more time progressing the Singleton Bypass at more than snail's pace and more time attempting to get our fair share of resources in regions funding—something he has failed to do.
In closing, I just want to say something about a topic I raised here last week. I will continue to fight the new general practice model, which is denying my constituents bulk-billing services and is making it harder for us to attract doctors to the Hunter communities.
Last year 1,188 people were killed on our roads nationally. Over 60 per cent of those were children, pedestrians or cyclists. Just think about that figure for a moment—almost 1,200 people. Then there are the more than 36,000 people who were seriously injured on our roads, many with moderate to serious brain injuries from which they will never recover. About two-thirds of road crash deaths occur in regional and remote communities, like mine in Cowper. Over 1.3 million people are killed on the world's roads each year, with more than 30 million suffering life-changing injuries. Based on current trauma levels, an estimated 500 million people will be killed or injured between now and 2030. In Australia alone, the economic cost of these deaths and injuries is over $3 billion each year.
Almost a decade ago the federal government recognised these statistics, and in 2011 the National Road Safety Strategy was established. The current NRSS, established in 2011 by the Australian government with the states and territories, is based on safe-system principles and the vision that no-one should be killed or seriously injured on Australian roads. It sets targets to reduce the annual numbers of serious injuries and deaths by at least 30 per cent by 2020. The total for the 12 months to the end of December 2019 was a reduction of 16.7 per cent—well below that target of 30 per cent. Its strategy, however, is supported by a series of action plans. Under the National Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020, governments are jointly progressing nine priority actions and several critical actions. These include targeted speed and infrastructure funding for regional, remote and local roads; increased roadside drug testing; improved vehicle regulations and promotion of vehicle safety technologies; and better measurement of people seriously injured in road crashes.
In 2017 the government commissioned an independent inquiry, backed by the Transport and Infrastructure Council, recognising that deaths and injuries were not decreasing fast enough. The inquiry report in September 2018 found implementation failure, a lack of focus on harm elimination, a need for stronger performance indication and monitoring insufficient scale of action. In response to one of these recommendations, the Review of National Road Safety Governance Arrangements was completed in August 2019. A further response—one which, in my opinion, draws a line in the sand—was the establishment of the Office of Road Safety in July 2019 to ensure greater Australian government leadership and coordination in road safety nationally.
So, what is next? The Transport and Infrastructure Council committed to developing the next National Road Safety Strategy, for 2021-2030, based on a target of zero fatalities. The council committed to the framework for the next National Road Safety Strategy in November 2019. It will be underpinned by safe-system principles framed around three themes—safe roads, safe vehicles and safe road use.
Safe road use focuses on the safety of all road users, including cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians, and discourages high-risk behaviour. Speed is to be considered within each of these three themes. It will include national targets of a reduced 50 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries by 2030 and a Vision Zero by 2050. It will complement and support state, territory and local government road safety strategies. Council will consider the detailed policy priorities and targets in June 2020. The final strategy and the first action plan will be considered at the final meeting of 2020.
I am honoured to have been elected as the chair of the joint committee and look forward to working with the Honourable Matt Thistlethwaite and the Office of Road Safety to achieve the targets set for 2030 and the Vision Zero by 2050.
I want to take the opportunity today to centre my contribution to the adjournment debate on Australia's national broadcaster. From the outset, I feel it's necessary to note the crucial role played by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in delivering emergency broadcasts during the catastrophic fires of the 2019-20 season. First, I would like to thank the ABC for its service in delivering vital emergency broadcasts and comprehensive coverage during the catastrophic fires. The information provided by the ABC was invaluable, especially in cases where communities had been cut off completely, with power, internet and telecommunications all unavailable.
It's crucial that in times of national emergency we have a strong, fully funded public broadcaster that's able to convey crisis messages to affected communities and provide complete coverage of events. This House would do well to acknowledge the vital role that the ABC has played over recent months, and we ought to commit to protecting the national broadcaster to ensure it can continue to operate in this manner. It's important to acknowledge there has been an exponential rise in emergency coverage presented by the ABC without an increase to its funding to cover the resources which have been poured into the broadcasting effort. Emergency broadcasts this year alone are currently sitting at over 670 and it's only early March. It's a figure up from 256 in 2017 and 371 in 2018-19.
I am a proud co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of the ABC in this place and I'd like to commend my co-chair, the member for Mayo, for bringing the important motion on the ABC before this House this week. In doing so, my colleague noted that since Boxing Day 2019, the ABC covered more than a hundred emergency broadcasts in a single week as bushfires raged across the country. The practical, life-saving information provided by the public broadcaster cannot be understated, and the effects of this bushfire season on people and their communities were certain to have been far worse if it wasn't for the ABC and its quality reporting—thank God for the ABC! In fact, the public broadcaster was not immune to the devastation caused by the fires and sustained very heavy damage to its radio and television network infrastructure in Batemans Bay in New South Wales and in East Gippsland in Victoria.
Despite funding cuts made to the ABC by this government and exhaustion as a result of the national emergency, the broadcaster mobilised rapidly to restore local radio stations as a priority in the disaster. The public relied on the ABC due to its critical role in providing information to communities during disasters, and thankfully the ABC pulled through by prioritising those affected communities. That's why it's critical to acknowledge the $83.7 million pause in indexation funding must be reversed by this current government as a matter of urgency. The ABC should not be put into a position of having to choose to economise on its emergency broadcasting due to funding cuts. It is thus clear that despite the extreme cuts that have been made to the ABC it has provided excellent service to the public in this year's period of national emergency.
In the wake of further inaction on climate change from this government and the likelihood of more extreme weather events in the ongoing future, it is critical that we adequately fund our public broadcaster. The ABC has faced a barrage of unwanted and ill-conceived attacks from those opposite in recent years, and I find this completely unacceptable. Time and again, the ABC demonstrate just how invaluable their organisation is and how wonderful the many services that they provide to all Australians are. Yet we have an irresponsible conservative government that consistently tries to suffocate, undermine, underfund and smother this organisation in over-regulation. I will not mince my words here: I found the attacks on the ABC by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government to be unprecedented, unpalatable and unjust.
I acknowledge that there are those opposite who understand the value of the ABC and who are willing to defend the organisation and the vital role that it plays. However, the fact remains that the recent ABC cuts and criticism have been intentionally caused by the coalition government on a number of occasions. The AFP raids on the broadcaster are an example. With the decline of journalism in this country—and I note with sadness the pending closure of the AAP announced this week—we must fiercely defend our national broadcaster. Independent reporting and journalism form an essential part of our democracy. It's my hope that our national broadcaster can continue to contribute to public debate in this country.
One of the defining challenges of our times is the requirement to materially reduce global emissions. I'm the father of three beautiful children and, of course, I want to give them the benefits of enjoying the wonderful environment that I've been able to enjoy. It's unfortunate, though, that those opposite seek to perpetuate the myth that Australia is somehow not pulling its weight in reducing emissions. The reality is quite the opposite. We're on track to meet our 2030 Paris target. On a per capita basis, that's a reduction of 50 per cent on 2005 levels. Australia is installing renewable energy capacity at 10 times the world average on a watts per capita basis. We currently source around a quarter of our electricity from renewables in our National Electricity Market, and this is projected to grow to more than 40 per cent by 2025. But, of course, there is more that we are committing to do, and that new plan is being prepared right now—a plan which will be ready for the next round of climate talks in Glasgow later this year. I would encourage my Labor Party colleagues in this place not to be drawn into the Greens' unworkable, ill-conceived thought bubbles which would trash our economy because I want my kids to enjoy a healthy environment and also to have a job and a decent standard of living, which we all in this place enjoy now. We owe it to our children to provide them—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
A division has been called, so the chamber will be suspended shortly. But, as we are only 10 minutes away from the conclusion of this debate, I intend to put the motion now that the chamber adjourns. The question is that the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:47