I seek leave to move the following motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2020 standing in the name of the Member for Grayndler being called on immediately and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2020 standing in the name of the Member for Grayndler being called on immediately and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House.
This is an issue that affects all Australians, particularly those in regional communities.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. They are cutting jobs, they are cutting postal delivery and they are using the pandemic as cover.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
This mean and tricky government wants to cut services to regional Australians.
I move:
That the question be put.
The question is that the question be put.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill strengthens the existing powers of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Quality and Safeguards Commissioner to ban a worker or provider from delivering services in the NDIS market.
This bill aims to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm from service provision and the people who work closely with them.
The recent tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Ann Marie Smith in South Australia have highlighted just how important it is to have the strongest possible protections available for NDIS participants.
The death of Ms Smith is absolutely shocking and the circumstances that led to her death must never be allowed to happen again.
As is appropriate, the circumstances of Ms Smith's death are being investigated by the independent bodies established to do just that. These independent bodies include the South Australia Police, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the South Australian Coroner.
NDIS commissioner, Mr Graeme Head AO, has also announced the appointment of former Federal Court judge, the Hon. Alan Robertson SC, to lead an independent inquiry into the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Smith, including regulation in relation to quality and safeguarding pursuant to the functions and powers of the commissioner of the NDIS Commission.
We should allow these investigations to continue without prejudice, however, the legislative amendments for strengthening banning orders were raised in the context of the review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act (NDIS Act) and were originally intended to be introduced as a part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Full Scheme) Bill 2020. Due to the pandemic, the public consultation and introduction of the bill has been delayed and is not expected to be considered until the spring legislative program.
Given this delay, and our commitment to have these protections in place, the government believes it is important to bring forward the amendments to strengthen the banning order provisions earlier as a standalone bill. This will ensure the NDIS Commission has the strengthened tools it needs to support the safety of NDIS participants as soon as possible.
The NDIS is one of the largest social and economic policy reforms in our history. It is transforming the lives of people with disability right across the country.
As at 31 March this year, there were 364,879 participants in the NDIS (excluding Western Australia). Around 150,000 of those people are receiving supports for the very first time.
All Australian governments are committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of NDIS participants. In December 2016, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) endorsed the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. The framework was the result of over three years of consultation with people with disability, carers and providers. It sets out a new approach to regulation for the NDIS to protect NDIS participants.
The national framework replaces the separate and disparate quality and safeguard arrangements for disability services in states and territories, with national protections to support the new national disability scheme and participants' access to services under the scheme.
To meet the Commonwealth's responsibilities under the framework, the government took strong, decisive action by establishing an independent, national body—the NDIS Commission—to ensure the quality and safety of NDIS services and to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm.
The NDIS Commission, as the independent national regulator, plays a key role in building confidence in the NDIS through its regulatory and compliance functions including registration of providers, complaints and reportable incidents, oversight of behaviour support, investigation and compliance and its role in developing and implementing nationally consistent NDIS worker screening.
The NDIS Commission has been in operation in NSW and South Australia since 1 July 2018 and all other jurisdictions since 1 July 2019, except Western Australia, which will come under the auspices of the NDIS Commission from 1 December 2020.
As at 31 March 2020, 17,006 NDIS providers were registered with the NDIS Commission. Of those registered, 45 per cent were individuals or sole traders.
As an independent statutory body with integrated functions, it is important the NDIS Commission has robust investigation and regulatory powers, and can take strong action where serious matters arise that affect the safety of NDIS participants including de-registration, banning and civil penalties where appropriate.
The capacity for taking strong regulatory action is essential in ensuring NDIS participants can live lives free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.
This, frankly, is why this bill is so important. It seeks to strengthen the NDIS Commission's banning order provisions to address the limitations of the current provisions under the NDIS Act(2013). The new provisions will help ensure providers and workers who should not be delivering services under the NDIS cannot do so.
Currently, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 empowers the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner to make banning orders.
However, it has become apparent that the provisions under which the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner may issue banning orders are too narrow.
The circumstances in which banning orders could be applied against a person, either a provider or worker, are those listed in section 73ZN of the NDIS Act. A banning order may be issued where the NDIS Commissioner reasonably believes at least one of the following situations exists:
A banning order may apply generally, to prevent a provider or person from providing any NDIS supports or services, or may be limited to a class of supports or services, or to particular people.
Before issuing a banning order, the commissioner would consider if the action would be reasonable, timely and proportionate in relation to the issue in question, what action has been taken previously, and whether there are more appropriate avenues to deal with the issue.
These and other general provisions will not change.
However, under the current legislation, the commissioner can only apply these provisions when the worker is engaged by a provider that is delivering services under the NDIS.
This means if a worker's engagement ends, such as if a worker is sacked because of the issue under consideration, the NDIS Commissioner cannot issue a banning order to the worker.
Similarly, under current legislation it is unclear, even if a banning order is applied before a worker's engagement ends or the provider they work for leaves the NDIS, that the order stays in force.
Further, the commissioner cannot currently issue a banning order to a person who is not yet involved in the delivery of NDIS services but is unsuitable to be involved in delivering them based on their known record in another similar sector such as aged care or child care. That is, a person who could have effectively been banned from one of these other sectors for reasons relevant to the delivery of NDIS services but the commissioner cannot ban such a person until they start to deliver services under the NDIS.
In short, this bill will strengthen the current banning provisions of the NDIS Act 2013 and address these concerns.
If the commissioner makes a banning order, this amendment will explicitly allow the NDIS Commissioner to use the existing NDIS provider register to publish details of such orders. This will include the order and enough information to identify the provider or worker subject to the order.
The NDIS provider register, which is generally publicly available, may be searched by persons with disability and their representatives to ensure that the providers or workers they are using are not subject to a banning order. This is an important protection.
Similarly, it may be one tool for providers looking to employ workers to help ensure the employees they recruit are safe to work with people with disability and able to work in the NDIS.
Information in the NDIS provider register that is not published will be protected NDIS Commission information and will only be shared and used consistently with the information protection and disclosure provisions in the NDIS Act and the NDIS Commission's legislated functions with the aim of protecting participants and ensuring confidence in the NDIS market for disability services.
Conclusion
The Australian government is committed to a high-quality, sustainable NDIS and effective national quality and safeguards arrangements. The strengthened banning order provisions support the aim of ensuring unsuitable providers and workers cannot provide NDIS services. This is an important part of developing trust in the NDIS market and the providers and workers in the market.
The NDIS provider register will provide timely, accurate access to banning order information for employers and self-managed NDIS participants, helping to ensure they can make an informed judgment about who should work with people with disability.
Our paramount consideration is the right of people with disability to live lives free from abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation. The Morrison government is committed to meeting this objective and this bill is an improvement over the existing banning provisions that will assist with protecting people with disability receiving disability services.
Not only are the changes to banning order provisions an important additional protection for people with disability accessing the NDIS, these changes will also increase confidence in the quality and safety of the NDIS market as well as assist in ensuring the long-term integrity and sustainability of the NDIS.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Morrison government continues to back small businesses by extending the $150,000 instant asset write-off for six months through to 31 December 2020. This measure is contained within this bill, in addition to a number of other tax integrity and regional support measures.
Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 and will enable Australia to enter into loan agreements with the IMF.
The IMF is providing emergency financing and debt relief, as well as enhancing liquidity, adjusting existing programs and access limits also. It's in Australia's interests that the IMF remains strong and adequately resourced in doing that job.
Access to IMF assistance offers benefits throughout the Indo-Pacific region, allowing countries to respond effectively to crises, securing financial stability and sustainable economic growth, and also to reduce poverty.
The legislative amendments put forward in this bill streamline the process by creating a clear legislative framework for Australia to enter into loan agreements, or amend existing agreements, with the IMF.
Where these types of loan agreements in the IMF constitute a formal international treaty action, they will be subject to tabling, consideration and reporting on the proposed agreement by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
Schedule 2 to the bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include Toy Libraries Australia, The Samuel Griffith Society and Friends of Myall Creek Memorial on the list of deductible gift recipients (DGRs). DGR status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to these three organisations.
Schedule 3 to the bill amends section 8C of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to remove the requirement for the IMF to request Australian assistance for a third country, as the IMF no longer issues such requests.
Schedule 4 to the bill amends the income tax law to extend, as I said at the outset, the $150,000 instant asset write-off by six months to 31 December 2020 for businesses with aggregated annual turnover of less than $500 million.
The government first announced the $150,000 instant asset write-off on 12 March 2020 as part of our commitment to backing business investment to help the economy withstand and recover from the economic impact of coronavirus.
The extension means that around 3½ million Australian businesses will continue to be able to access the $150,000 instant asset write-off for their investments as they emerge from the economic impact of the coronavirus. This includes any investments that may have been delayed by supply chain disruptions to date.
The instant asset write-off helps improve cash flow for businesses by of course bringing forward tax deductions on purchases of eligible depreciating assets. The threshold applies on a per asset basis, so eligible businesses can immediately write off multiple assets each costing less than $150,000.
Eligible assets, which include new and second-hand depreciating assets, will need to be first used or installed ready for use by 31 December 2020.
The bill also ensures that larger businesses that adopt substituted accounting periods will be able to access the $150,000 instant asset write-off for purchases of eligible assets until 31 December 2020 as well.
Schedule 5 to the bill will amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to reduce the GDP adjustment factor for the 2020-21 income year to nil. The GDP adjustment factor is applied by the commissioner to work out the amount of PAYG instalments payable by a taxpayer in certain circumstances. Taxpayers that pay instalments that are not indexed by historical nominal GDP outcomes already use methods that are automatically adjusted to any income shocks.
This change will better align tax instalments with current economic conditions. An estimated 2.2 million taxpayers paying PAYG income tax instalments and around 81,000 taxpayers paying GST instalments will be positively impacted.
Schedule 6 to the bill amends the Boosting Cash Flow for Employers (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Act 2020 to clarify that the calculation of a cash flow boost credit will include amounts of personal service income withheld.
This amendment will apply to all cash flow boost payments from the March 2020 period.
The government is continuing, through these measures and many others, to do what it takes to ensure that Australia bounces back stronger from the coronavirus crisis. I therefore commend the bill to the House.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am proud to introduce the Health Insurance Amendment (Continuing the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2020, which amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 for the purpose of continuing the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner (the office) and strengthening its functions.
Improving rural, regional and remote health, including through access to health professionals and primary care services is an integral priority for the government.
Our health system is one of the most successful health systems in the world. Like all systems though, it is not without its challenges.
In Australia our challenge is not about having an undersupply of doctors, but about getting an equitable distribution of doctors to where they are needed most—outside of our capital cities and into our regional, rural and remote communities.
The government is committed to tackling the challenge of getting doctors, nurses and allied health professionals to take up rural health careers.
Since 2013 the government has demonstrated its commitment by delivering a range of initiatives and program reforms which benefit the rural health workforce and the rural training pipeline.
We've increased funding to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, including supporting mental health and dental clinics. We've provided more opportunities to train rurally by funding the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network and the Rural Junior Doctor Training Innovation Fund. And we've introduced GP telehealth for remote and very remote communities.
We've made changes to support more student, junior doctors and trainees to undertake training in rural communities, because we know that if you train in a rural area, you are more likely to stay in a rural area.
We've invested in the Stronger Rural Health Strategy, a $550 million package of reforms including incentives, targeted funding and bonding arrangements to meet the challenge of redistributing the workforce.
And in 2016, we made a commitment to establish a National Rural Health Commissioner office to support improvements to rural health policies and programs.
The inaugural commissioner, Emeritus Professor Paul Worley, has considered a substantial body of research and contributed analysis and recommendations, which has underpinned the government's decision to continue the office as a critical resource for government in developing future policies and programs.
Since its establishment in 2017, the office has delivered valuable outcomes, including brokering the landmark 'Collingrove Agreement' to develop a framework for the rural generalist subspecialty and providing advice leading to the $62.2 million investment in the National Rural Generalist Pathway.
More recently, the office has been investigating how we can improve access to allied health professionals in rural communities. The office has contributed a comprehensive review of the evidence for strategies to improve rural allied health access and quality, with work underway to translate the evidence into recommendations for reform.
I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Professor Worley for his leadership establishing the office, his energy and passion in performing his role, and his profound commitment to improving health outcomes for rural communities.
And that is why I am proud to introduce this bill to continue the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner beyond 1 July 2020, when the office is currently due to cease.
Rural health is built on the commitment, the expertise and the courage of its workforce.
That is even more evident in today's climate.
There's no doubt that drought, the recent bushfires and COVID-19 has had a significant impact on our nation.
In response to it, we have seen that we have some of the most resilient and passionate people working in this sector.
The continuation of the role of commissioner, supported by a cross-disciplinary team, will provide the rural health workforce and communities with a dedicated office focused on the health needs of rural communities.
The office will support the development and implementation of government's health strategies and policies to ensure the needs of rural Australians are considered.
It will contribute to significant reforms already underway in the Health portfolio including primary healthcare reforms, the National Medical Workforce Strategy and consideration of the review of the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program.
And it will be a key source of independent and impartial advice on opportunities to improve health service access and sustainability for rural communities.
The office will have a key role in strengthening the rural training pathway, considering innovations to achieve a sustainable and accessible workforce, and will have patient needs at the heart of its work.
In particular, the office will continue to provide advice and support on implementing the National Rural Generalist Pathway, a medical training pathway focused on providing general practitioners with advanced skills to better support the communities in which they live and work.
I want to ensure the office has a focus on delivering practical outcomes.
One of the early priorities for the new office will be to support the government's ongoing rural response to COVID-19 and to advise on the impact on the health workforce in regional, rural and remote communities.
The office will drive innovation, with a clear focus on supporting on-the-ground improvements. This will include an initial focus on working with communities experiencing chronic workforce shortages to co-design implementable primary-care models that respond in a targeted way to each community's circumstances. This will assist government to identify opportunities for practical trials, to be evaluated by the office.
In continuing the office, I have sought to ensure that the commissioner and his or her team will have a broader remit to support government in delivering better health outcomes for rural Australians including through supporting implementation of programs and in undertaking specific projects as tasked by the minster.
Additional functions relating to regional, rural and remote health are able to be conferred on the commissioner by legislative instrument. This will enable the commissioner to be tasked with taking a more active role in implementing rural health initiatives, delivering on-the-ground change to support communities.
As a member of a small rural community, I know how important our rural doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers are to country Australians.
In fact, in a rural town, there is a good chance that your GP also works in the hospitals administering anaesthetics or delivering babies.
That means that your nurses and allied health professionals are a critical part of getting day-to-day medical attention.
With this in mind and to deliver on the intent of taking a broader perspective on rural health, the office will incorporate non-statutory deputy commissioners, who will play a critical role supporting the commissioner and will enable the office to have expertise across a range of vital rural health disciplines.
Importantly, this breadth of expertise will mean the office brings a deep understanding of how different health professions work together to deliver the best possible services in our rural and remote communities.
Of course, a key role of the office will be to build and maintain strong relationships across the sector, so that government benefits from the insights, ingenuity and different perspectives on improving services for communities.
The office will be expected to take a patient centred and regionally focused approach, considering the needs of the communities, families and individuals that make up country Australia.
It's important that the office delivers for rural Australians.
To that end, the office will be reviewed after five years of operation to assess its effectiveness and achievements. This will be an important checkpoint to identify opportunities for improvement or confirm the appropriateness of the office's arrangements in areas such as its functions, operations and governance.
The outcome of this review will be tabled in parliament.
This government recognises the value of our rural communities and the special place they hold within the fabric of this country.
People living in these communities make an enormous contribution to our national economy, and to the culture and character of Australia.
Access to a quality standard of health care is what they deserve and are entitled to expect.
Rural and remote communities face chronic doctor shortages and higher burden of disease. In addition they have the ongoing impact of drought, the recent bushfires, and now COVID-19.
The government's action today means the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner can continue a focus on the health needs of rural Australians, particularly in this time of pandemic.
This legislation will be a vital contribution to rural health policy in Australia.
This government looks forward to working closely with the office to ensure we can improve access to health services for all the men and women who call regional, rural and remote Australia home.
Debate adjourned.
The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has agreed to a resolution referring the matter of the destruction of 46,000-year-old caves at the Juukan gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia for inquiry and report.
The message read as follows—
That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia for inquiry and report by 30 September 2020:
The destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) the operation of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) and approvals provided under the Act;
(b) the consultation that Rio Tinto engaged in prior to the destruction of the caves with Indigenous peoples;
(c) the sequence of events and decision-making process undertaken by Rio Tinto that led to the destruction;
(d) the loss or damage to the traditional owners, the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, from the destruction of the site;
(e) the heritage and preservation work that has been conducted at the site;
(f) the interaction of state Indigenous heritage regulations with Commonwealth laws;
(g) the effectiveness and adequacy of state and federal laws in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage in each of the Australian jurisdictions;
(h) how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage laws might be improved to guarantee the protection of culturally and historically significant sites;
(i) opportunities to improve Indigenous heritage protection through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and
(j) any other related matters.
I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
I rise to speak on the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 and related bills. There are many people who at times find it very difficult to get to sleep at night. I believe that a replay of this debate that we are having should put them to sleep in a jiffy! In fact, I'm thinking about recording it and playing it to my boys at night when they're having trouble passing out.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority was brought about by the Wallis inquiry. The Wallis inquiry was certainly referred to at the time of the HIH collapse and is used in National Australia Bank foreign-investment lending. APRA itself was a child of three other organisations, if my memory serves me correctly: the Insurance and Superannuation Commission; the Reserve Bank of Australia, which played a part in that commission; and the Australian Financial Institutions Commission, I believe. Why do I know this? It was almost cognate with myself being an accountant at the time.
APRA's role is to oversight financial institutions, superannuation funds and life insurance companies so that they have the capacity to pay out facilities and that the Australian people have a sense of confidence in what they do. In Australian history it's had its challenges from time to time. We have seen internationally what happens if financial institutions collapse or are even deemed to be at risk of collapsing; it can have devastating effects throughout an economy. APRA's role is absolutely essential in that space, and it really mimics the roles of other institutions throughout the globe.
The government is now doing a cost recovery process. A cost recovery process has to have capacity from time to time to amend and change fees so that we get a better reflection of what the costs are for the process that APRA has. It needs a determination in respect of each class of levy for that financial year, specifying the amount of levy money payable to the Commonwealth in respect of that class of levy for that financial year to cover the following cost to the Commonwealth: supporting the integrity efficiency of markets, which are leviable by the bodies that operate.
I suppose everyone is aware that last night the American market took a bit of a dip. The ramifications of COVID-19 have breathed some real uncertainty into the markets. For a while there, we heard people using the D-word—depression. Thank God that doesn't seem to be what is coming our way, but Australia is most certainly going to be affected by a recession after record years of growth—a record held throughout the globe. APRA's role going forward, especially with these markets, is going to be one that we have to be very aware of.
We are also going to have to look forward to what the money market will do in the future. I believe that at the time we had a tightening of the short-term money market, which probably doesn't work in direct correlation with Reserve Bank rates; people should be very aware there is a difference between them. For Australia itself, this is going to be a big issue. The other day the Australian Office of Financial Management announced—and I was watching—that Australian government securities outstanding had reached $666.3 billion. That is a record—two-thirds of a trillion dollars. If you look back at your interest rates, maybe if you go back to 1982, you'll find that most of them come with two digits, not one.
What this means for the future is that we're going to have to make substantial payments just to reach our interest. To use an example: I envisage we'll end up about a trillion dollars in debt. I hope that will not be the case, but I believe it is where we're going. Of course, when you get there, why will things turn around? Why will things head back in the other direction? What are you proposing to do? The immigration rates after this will probably fall, and one of the big drivers of our economic growth has been immigration. As that falls, it's going to make things more difficult no matter what government is in place to try to manage this.
If we were to assume a seven or eight per cent interest rate—and I think that would be a fair call, noting that now we have record low interest rates, but a money market by its very nature is a fluctuating thing, otherwise it wouldn't be called a market. As circumstances inevitably change, you will find interest rates going back to probably more of a median of its historical position. I think seven or eight per cent would not be an unreasonable assessment of that. As I said, you have to say to yourself: at $1 trillion, that is $80 billion a year in interest.
Recently we invested half a billion dollars into the construction of Dungowan Dam, as one. To put this in terms that people can understand, that is 160 Dungowan Dams a year. That is the opportunity cost of the interest we paid. One hundred and sixty extra Dungowan Dams in Australia would have an immense economic stimulus on this nation. But if you are taking $80 billion out of our economy and sending it overseas, the opportunity cost of that will also be immense.
I think this is something that both sides of the political fence have to really concentrate on. It is unreasonable and unfair and without foresight to think that, at some stage in the future, the Labor Party will not be the government. This problem may become theirs. Therefore, there has to be a concerted effort on both sides to work on how we are going to bring this debt back under control.
When there is a discussion about further expenditure, that only comes from one spot: borrowed money. It's from that borrowed money. If you look at the final residing place of the bonds—noting we usually have an intermediary, UBS being a classic one—from what we can discern, it is only a broad aspect: Asian markets. I suggest that the biggest one of those is the Communist People's Republic of China. So what you now have is a large section of the Australian bond market whose final residence is with a country that was probably the source of the problem in the first instance.
I've heard other people start with, 'Foreign investment in Australia' and then quote the most recent figures, but they don't actually go to where our bonds are, because it's very hard to ascertain the final residence of our bonds. I was very much applied to this back in 2009 in the Senate, when I was trying to devise with my colleagues on both sides of the political house how we come up with a process of discerning this. If a nation has an inordinate amount of our bonds, whether we're aware of it or not, and they decide to play the market with them, that can have an immense effect on our nation, so it's something that we have to be cautious about. The first act of caution would be to make sure we haven't got so many of them outstanding. This is not what's happening at the moment.
I've had concerns, to be quite frank. When the GFC was on, I did not vote for one of the so-called GFC stimulus packages. I made a point of not voting for them, because I believed that spending on immediate consumables was secondary to our investment in capital infrastructure that could build the economy over the longer term. I believe that, if you invest in a dam, you have the capacity to repay your debts. If you invest in things such as ceiling insulation, it's gone. It's an important product, predominantly, in any case. Investments in things which will be consumables, whether in the construction of a house or what you furnish it with, I don't see will have the same stimulus effect as the construction of a railway line or the upgrade of a dam or the construction of a new airport. Obviously it's an iconic utilisation of capital expenditure—dams, as far as I'm concerned, is at the top of the tree.
APRA has to work in the foreseeable future and in an uncertain world, therefore it has to be able to finance the job it does. That uncertainty has been brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Even as we speak, there are people who are taking actions that exacerbate that risk. I commend the member for Maribyrnong for noting the other day that those who participate in the protests are actually causing a problem that will exacerbate the issue they are protesting against. If you have an issue about Black Lives Matter, then you'd better consider those in remote Indigenous communities. The remote Indigenous communities are the ones who are probably at the pinnacle of risk. If this disease were to get into remote communities, people would die. We don't want to be party to being responsible for that. As part and parcel of the uncertainties that are in the financial markets, the seed of which is the coronavirus, you would think that people would use a mechanism of public discourse, whether it be online or letters to the editor or waiting for a time where we have better control over our issues, and not completely flaunt every health regulation, and, in many instances, every law, because they so choose on that day. In noting the demonstrators, I don't think their actual attachment to the issue was as pertinent and they would put forward. Many of the demonstrators were merely 'look at me' demonstrators. It was their big day out. It was a day at the tracks for them. If you actually sat down with them and drilled down and asked them to name some of the black deaths in custody, I think they would really struggle to name one of them.
APRA is going to have a full book as it goes forward. It's going to have a full book making sure that people are able to claim on their superannuation and that those funds are available. It's going to have a full book making sure life policies can be paid out. It's going to have a full book making sure that one of the great strengths of the Australian economy, which is the strength of our banking sector, remains, while, in the same breath, making sure that they don't rule out the competition in the banking sector so that banks, such as the Regional Australia Bank, are able to grow in the book they hold and offer alternatives to the four major banks.
Most of what I see in the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 is perfunctory. I believe that most of it should not cause much disquiet. It is merely a bill that allows us to cover costs, but it is also a great avenue to allow people to talk on a range of things that they believe to be pertinent today.
I look forward to the next speech. It looks like it's going to come from the member for Maribyrnong. I would suggest that, out of his 20 minutes, he will talk for approximately two minutes on the bill and will use the other 80 to 90 per cent of the time to talk on other issues.
I acknowledge a rare burst of telepathy from the member for New England about what I'm going to say.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 makes some sensible reforms, including changing the way the regulator is funded. The bill also provides an opportunity to speak about Labor's decades-long crusade for the national nest egg and what superannuation does for our nation and, in particular, to sound a warning about the dangers in rating it as an easy out for tough times. Of course, the government's providing of access to superannuation in the pandemic gets couched in the language of individual choice and freedom. But it really is a form of immature financial vandalism.
There was a time in Western politics when the conservative parties were conservative, when they were considered in the metaphor of responsible adults who did responsible things like long-term planning, fighting against reckless change, keeping what is good and saving for a rainy day. But this has all changed with the arrival of the neo-cons, the slash-and-burn happy cultural warriors who would happily lay waste to over-the-horizon policies, from the higher education sector to future funds, if they did not suit their immediate needs. These neo-cons have a shaman-like faith in the invisible hand, and that's not going to save us if we spend the future retirement funds of millions of Australians now. This leaves social democratic parties of labour to have to be the conservative in the room, the adult in the room, not arguing in favour of change for change's sake, being the ones, in fact, who have to issue the warnings and the counsel about storing stocks for coming winters, about not eating the seed corn, and we see this most clearly in the time of the coronavirus. In a global emergency, timely action is vital, but panic is dangerous. Telling Australians who are doing it tough to dig into their superannuation risks inflicting damage on individuals and families and the economy that will ricochet down the decades after the COVID-19 danger has passed.
Labor were cooperative and constructive in the parliament in March. We voted for government stimulus not because we thought every measure was exactly right but because we didn't want to hold it up and wait for wiser measures, and we knew that it was not a time for delay, nor national disunity. Indeed, in this parliamentary chamber in the pandemic, there were no apostles of small government; we were all social democrats. But also, as a conscientious opposition, we have a responsibility to be candid with the public and to try and protect Australians from bad decisions of government. In amongst the welter of rushed stimulus, there were mistakes made by the government. Government forcing workers to sell their superannuation at the bottom of a global market crash is indeed the grandaddy of all bad decisions.
This raid on retirement savings is not being presented to people as a fallback measure or a last resort. Instead, workers who have lost their job or taken a cut in pay and hours are being told they can take up to $20,000 from their super to supplement their income now. We're not talking about a small group of people here, either. So far, 1.8 million Australians have accessed $3.5 billion out of their plans, with a further 160,000 Australians set to increase that figure further. This is more than $3½ billion out of the national savings pool.
One of the strategies of the government is, sadly, seeing working people paying for their own safety net twice. What I mean by that is that, first of all, working people get their regular pay and then they see their superannuation dollars put aside for their retirement. This is the future safety net. Secondly, working people get their regular pay; they've seen their dollars taken out in tax and given to the government for, amongst other things, the maintaining of an emergency national safety net. This is how workers pay for their immediate safety net. But, now that we're in an emergency, the government is saying, 'We don't want to fully support you out of your tax contribution for the current safety net; you need to rob your future safety net, your future super savings—the safety net for retirement.' The government is asking you to rob your future to pay for the present.
Further, leave aside government's obligation to support its taxpayers in an emergency. The early access to super scheme is very easy to satisfy; there will be people doing so who are not in dire financial hardship. Where has some of the early access super money gone to? A recent sample of 13,000 people who accessed their super under the early release scheme shows 64 per cent of spending went on discretionary items—clothing, restaurant food, gambling and alcohol. So we are cracking open the national nest egg and throwing away the yolk. I listened very carefully to the member for New England, who said that his critique of some of the 2009 stimulus measures is that it wasn't building the long term but was just individual stimulus for the short term. Well, consistent with that critique, this early access measure, unfortunately, meets the same test that the member for New England set for the 2009 measures.
This raiding of the superannuation is not only bad for individual Aussies; it puts a strain on the liquidity of super funds and it causes new pain for the Australian companies that they invest in. In the short term the policy will be counterproductive. In the long term the damage will actually be far worse. Smashing open the nation's superannuation is a decision that will compound every year. For example, taking $20,000 of your super as a 30-year-old will leave you around $100,000 worse off by the time you hit 65—$100,000 worse off! Albert Einstein once called compound interest a miracle. The benefit of investing now is that you get the benefit of compound interest and your savings increase. But if you withdraw that money now you can't get the benefit and the miracle of Einstein's compound interest.
Let us pause and reflect on what it was like before there was compulsory superannuation. Millions of Australians worked hard all their life, only to fall into poverty upon retirement. We shouldn't treat superannuation as a luxury—something which only the well-off are entitled to and something to be sacrificed and thrown away when times are tough for the bulk. Telling Australian workers struggling to make ends meet that the government can only look after them if they dip into their own superannuation, as if it's just a matter of giving up an additional pay TV channel or cutting back on Uber food, is beyond risky; it is downright negligent and reckless.
We understand that the economic climate is tough and we understand that it is getting worse. I know that a lot of very good Australians—businesses, people on the land, people in the regions, people in the cities—are coming under terrible pressure, and increasingly so in the coming weeks and months, when the hammer falls in late September and the government abandons the safety net. But the government of Australia should not be telling Australians to steal from their own future to survive their present. You should never have to steal from your own future to survive the present. If you've lost your job, you shouldn't be forced to raid your retirement savings to provide for your family.
This is a time for cooperation, but it's a time for clear heads. We know that some in the conservative ranks of politics regard superannuation as a Labor and union conspiracy and so they dislike it. But the great Australian safety net, contributed to by Labor and social democratic values, needs to be defended—superannuation and Medicare. This government needs to make peace with the fact that Australians like superannuation. They like it because it gives them a sense of control over their future, not just a means for their current survival. Instead of taking the easy option of raiding superannuation, the government should spend more time listening to experts. In years to come we will look back with bemusement and we will shake our heads at the panic buying which gripped our supermarkets—the images of adult Australians fighting over toilet paper. But if this government repeatedly encourages people to panic-sell their superannuation, our whole country will live for decades with the regret of this government's panic buying. The thing about robbing the future is that the future still arrives, and it has a way of demanding that its debt is settled. I commend the legislation.
It's my pleasure to speak on the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 and associated bills. I concur with the member for New England: this might make for good bedtime reading—short bedtime reading! But, nonetheless, it is an important bit of law. What we are doing here is fixing an issue with the levies, the taxes, that we put on some of the big banks. In the current financial year, 2019-20, what we've found is that legislative barriers are preventing the largest banks from paying their fair share of the cost of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to actually regulate them. This has resulted in $3.1 million in levies being deferred. These levies will be paid by these institutions once this barrier is addressed, which is what this bill is intending to do. It's intending to address the legislative barrier and ensure that the government—the Morrison Liberal-National government—has adequate flexibility to set the level of levies required so that the big banks pay their fair share into the future. That is very, very important because one of the major costs that we need to recover from the banks—and I really hope that it is going to come from the banks' profits and not be passed on to customers, because I can tell you: customers are well and truly aware of these little things that the banks do to sting them, when the cost should be taken out of the banks' massive windfall profits, and customers will vote with their feet—is of the new regulations relating to supervising banks in the light of the banking royal commission.
I want to talk about the banking royal commission in detail today, actually, because it is important to know the history of how we got the banking royal commission. I want to give some thoughts on where I think that banking royal commission might have been a little bit deficient. But, in the main, it has been a good thing in terms of cleaning up the industry and it has certainly made a lot of the big banks and their executives sit up and take notice of what the public has been saying on these matters for quite some time.
I had held concerns about the banking industry and their misconduct for quite some time, long before it became fashionable to call for a banking royal commission. I'd raised the matter repeatedly in government. The member for New England, who was the leader of the Nationals, knows that all too well. I was raising these issues alongside others, particularly then senator John 'Wacka' Williams, who was on this matter well and truly before I or anyone in this place or the other place was. The member for Wide Bay, the member for Leichhardt, the member for Kennedy, former member of this place Ann Sudmalis and former senator Barry O'Sullivan were some of those from this side of the House or the other place who were well and truly agitated by some of the misconduct they'd seen from the big banks.
In late 2016, I realised that the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was not for turning. He'd come from the big banks, from the banking sector, and he was not going to upset his mates. So I resolved in late 2016 that if we got a meaningful motion—not a do-nothing motion, because there are plenty of motions that come before this House that just say, 'We support this,' or, 'We support that,' without actually having anything concrete to show for it—to the floor of parliament then I would vote for it, and the only meaningful motion that this parliament could actually vote on, on this matter, would be one for a bill for a law that established a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the banks.
A commission of inquiry, for those in the know, is simply another name for a royal commission. Royal commissions are established by the executive—by the government of the day, not the parliament—and the only one with the authority to set that up would be, obviously, the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister. I did some deep diving into this and saw that a parliamentary commission of inquiry was something that a parliament could bring into effect which has exactly the same powers as a royal commission. So I resolved in late 2016 that if we got to a position where there was a bill that could be brought before this place then I would be voting for it, regardless of the government's point of view on the matter.
In early 2017, I realised that the only way that that would happen was if I was part of the move to actually get such a bill. So I started working with the member for Kennedy on a draft bill that was later picked up and amended, and probably made stronger and better, by then senator Barry O'Sullivan. It is not just my recollection of history that would lead you to think that. There are many commentators, but I'll just go through a few who have shown that. This is important, because it is to get the facts straight. During the last election, and before that, I had missives from the Labor Party and the union movement coming into my electorate, claiming that I had opposed a royal commission into the banks. The facts are another matter altogether. Samantha Maiden, writing in The New Dailyan online journal that is certainly not favourable to me or to the coalition, said:
The government’s backflip on a royal commission was ultimately informed by the threat of backbenchers, including Nationals MP George Christensen, to cross the floor.
James Massola of the Sydney Morning Herald, no friend of mine or the government's, reported:
Nationals MP Llew O'Brien is set to join his Queensland Nationals colleague George Christensen and vote in the lower house for the banking commission of inquiry after the revolt was kick-started by Queensland senator Barry O'Sullivan.
Independent Australia, a left-wing online journal, said:
With his eye on the 2019 election, Turnbull told us in November 2017 that a royal commission was unnecessary and will harm the image and reputation of our major banks. 'There is not going to be a banking Royal Commission', he thundered.
An honourable member interjecting—
Was he what?
An honourable member interjecting—
Yes, that's right, the former Prime Minister was involved with HIH.
Independent Australia goes on to say:
Nevertheless, Nationals Senator Barry O'Sullivan and MPs John (Wakka) Williams and, to a lesser extent, George Christensen had their ears to the ground and were listening to their electorates, whose members were recounting stories of disgraceful behaviour by the Big Four, and demanding action.
Success has many fathers, but the real heroes of the Royal Commission should be recognised. It pains me to say this, but these are the three National Party representatives who forced Turnbull’s hand.
Barry O’Sullivan, John Williams and George Christensen: take a bow!
That is echoed by Michelle Gratton, the esteemed journalist of The Conversation, who previously had written that while cabinet had considered, and people in it had argued, whether the government should be pragmatic and hold a royal commission into the banks—and Turnbull had refused that. She said:
… the Government was forced to drop its resistance when Nationals rebels threatened to revolt.
Take a bow, Queensland Nationals backbenchers Barry O'Sullivan, George Christensen and Llew O'Brien. You did everyone a service.
Sharri Markson of The Daily Telegraph said of the banking royal commission:
They were facing a backbench revolt led by Nationals MP George Christensen over the issue at a time when the Coalition’s numbers in Parliament were down as a result of the dual citizenship crisis.
She further said that, in effect, the banking royal commission 'was forced on the Turnbull government by the renegade George Christensen'. I distinctly remember the day that there was that grand backflip and the announcement that a royal commission into the banks and banking misconduct would go ahead, but the ABC reported that Malcolm Turnbull had done what he vowed he would never do: call a royal commission into the banks—'If the government hadn't set up its own inquiry, parliament would have forced one.' It would have forced one through the very legislation that I worked on with Bob Katter, the member for Kennedy, and then senator Barry O'Sullivan. This legislation would have established a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the banks. It probably would have been something that would have been greater than the banking royal commission that we got, because it would have looked at so many other areas.
I reiterate the words that I said that were quoted in that ABC News story that night. It's very sad that it took a number of National Party backbenchers to drag the then Prime Minister kicking and screaming to the decision of holding a banking royal commission. I'll leave this part of my comments at that, but to say that if anyone wonders why the former Prime Minister pursues a vendetta against me, it's this.
The banking royal commission exposed so many different areas of misconduct, but it actually didn't go far enough. I think there was a great deficiency in looking at small business, because what we had was a situation where the banks were basically wantonly throwing money at different small businesses regardless of their capacity to pay. They had structured loan deals as such that if a small business ran into a bit of turmoil or, even if it hadn't, if the region, such as the Mackay region, suffered a downturn—which we did when the mining industry had a bit of a dip—the banks would come in and say, 'We're going to set up some sort of emergency measures and put you into management,' to the small business. They would impose on them measures like penalty interest rates. They would impose on them measures like having their books audited, their businesses audited, by major accounting firms, which costs tens of thousands of dollars. They would put on them all of these restrictions and all of these costs, which were what actually crippled the business. It was not the natural economy but the banks intervening that would bring about the harm that would cause a difficulty to make payments. The banks would just bleed and bleed and bleed the business until the business had no more to give. At that point the bank probably got just about all it could out of them, which would have been more than what had actually been loaned to that business, and then they would move to wind them up. That's what happened.
I've got to say, it's not happening so much now but we've got a perverse outcome where because the banks now realise—because of the royal commission, because of the focus on them, because of the regulations that have been put in, because of the regulations that have been coming—they can't enter into these dodgy deals anymore. The banks had no risks. They basically stitched up contracts where they said: 'We will never ever lose here. We will bleed you dry. We will never ever lose.' People, if they had their eyes wide open and saw what their contracts actually said when they entered into those loans would never have signed the bottom line.
Now that situation's changed and banks aren't loaning. They're not providing any money. I think that's a bit of an indictment still on the banks, because any business arrangement has got to be one in which both parties accept some form of risk. You can't have a situation where we just simply don't supply finance because we have a risk. Well, welcome to the world, big banks, welcome to the economy, welcome to business. Everyone starting a business, everyone entering into a business arrangement has got to accept some form of risk and the bank should too. What we've had is the government stepping into that void and providing capitalisation, billions of dollars, through to the non-big banks and the smaller lenders to try and fill that void for small business. Hopefully big banks will see the error of their ways but, I have to tell you, this bill will make sure that they pay for the regulation that oversights those errors.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (Apra Industry Funding) Bill 2020 provides for funding of APRA through industry levies. The government learnt the hard way about the importance of adequately funding our regulators that look after financial services in this country when in the 2014 budget, we all know, they cut the funding of ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which meant that there were staff losses and a lot of expertise, a lot of prosecutorial expertise in that particular regulator were lost. Then we had the wealth management scandal hit the Commonwealth Bank, followed by CommInsure and a number of insurers, which resulted in the banking royal commission. In that royal commission, we saw just what damage was done to regulation of financial services by those cuts that were undertaken by the Abbott government in 2014. So the government learnt the hard way but it's pleasing to see that the regulators, in the wake of that, have been given additional funding. This bill provides for industry levies to ensure that there is adequate funding for the work of important regulators, particularly APRA.
The levy imposition amendment bill changes schedules, increasing the statutory limits on the amount of levies that APRA can collect from the entities it prudentially regulates. The bill also makes amendments to how indexation factors are used to index the statutory upper limit. These changes will allow the levies to be more fairly distributed. This has been an issue that has been particularly identified by some of the smaller banks. The current upper limits result in large entities paying less as a percentage of APRA costs and smaller entities paying more. Many of those smaller banks have been disproportionately affected.
This bill will allow for a wider range of APRA activities to be funded through industry levies as well. That includes the costs incurred in connection with supporting the integrity and efficiency of markets in which leviable bodies operate, the costs incurred in connection with promoting the interests of consumers in markets in which leviable bodies operate and the costs relating directly or indirectly to regulation of leviable bodies. All industry funding levies charged by APRA are set out in the legislative instruments approved annually by the regulators.
It's important that we have adequately funded regulators in financial services. The royal commission that we recently had proved that. But it's also important given that many of these regulators oversee what was the fourth-largest pool of investment funds anywhere in the world, in our wonderful superannuation system. Unfortunately, we've seen the government fail to heed both the advice of experts and the warnings Labor issued in respect of the measures that they've put in place regarding the early release of superannuation to deal with COVID. Of course we now know that, under their early release scheme, people can apply in two lots for up to $10,000 for the early release of their superannuation.
There are two points that Labor made about these changes when they were proposed: firstly, that people should seek financial advice. Seek independent financial advice before you dip into your pool of superannuation savings. We also warned the government that this scheme may be subject to fraud because it had been rushed and the checks and balances hadn't been put in place for people to adequately have a look at whether or not some people were rorting the system. The government has ignored both those concerns. We've had some of their MPs and senators actually encouraging people to withdraw money from their superannuation.
On 16 April, Senator Bragg sent an email to constituents saying that, if you need super, 'you should apply for it'. I was alerted to this by one of my constituents when she sent me a copy of the email that she received from Senator Bragg. This person said to me, 'It's highly inappropriate to receive financial advice from an unlicensed senator.' I completely agree with the constituent who sent me that email. Senator Bragg should not be giving financial advice to vulnerable Australians during this difficult time, firstly because he's not licensed to and doesn't hold an Australian financial services licence. But he should not be using Australian workers and potentially risking their retirement savings because of his ideological crusade against industry superannuation—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
a crusade which I suspect is shared by the member for Goldstein, who's rudely interrupting over there. The correct advice is to advise Australians to seek advice from a registered financial adviser and assess whether or not accessing your superannuation early is the right thing for you to do.
We've seen what has occurred with this early release scheme and the fraudulent activities that have been uncovered by the AFP and the ATO. Some $100,000 worth of people's superannuation savings has allegedly been stolen from 150 superannuation accounts. Labor warned the government about the potential for fraud in this scheme. We wrote to the minister, Senator Hume, on 1 May and asked her to put in place measures to ensure rigorous checking to combat potential fraud. The very day that the minister sent a letter out to the industry superannuation funds assuring them that there was no fraud and saying, 'Substantial checks are in place to guard against fraud,' the AFP was notified that more than $100,000 had been stolen from people's superannuation accounts. Senator Gallagher uncovered in the Senate, through the COVID committee hearings, that at least three government ministers had done nothing about that alleged fraud. We say to government MPs and senators: this is an extremely difficult time for many Australians, and you need to be on your game. Many programs have suffered from poor planning and poor execution by this government, and the early release superannuation scheme is one of those.
On 1 June, a couple of weeks ago, AlphaBeta, a consultancy firm, released some analysis of real-time bank transaction data and a sample of 13,000 Australians who had accessed their superannuation early through the early release scheme. That data, and what it uncovered, was quite startling, but it was also quite horrifying, because the sample of 13,000 people showed that 64 per cent of them had spent their early release superannuation on discretionary items like furniture, alcohol and, worryingly, gambling. I think 10 per cent of that expenditure had gone on online gambling. Forty per cent of those who had accessed their superannuation had not actually suffered a drop in their income so far due to COVID-19, and that's the startling statistic—that 40 per cent of those people didn't actually suffer a drop in their incomes as a result of COVID-19. That's the reason why Labor and financial planners were saying to Australians, 'Make sure you get independent advice before you dip into your superannuation.' It appears, based on the AlphaBeta analysis, that the money was being used for lifestyle reasons rather than for necessities and to get by.
What does that mean? The effect of that is that this scheme will weaken the ability of Australians to save for their retirement. As a result of this, we're going to see many more Australians retire with inadequate savings in their superannuation accounts. It's going to reduce superannuation balances. We all know the compounding effect of withdrawing money from your superannuation account now and what that can do to superannuation balances at retirement age, particularly, unfortunately, for those who have breaks from the workforce, and most notably it's women in those situations. Again, this is another policy from this government that detrimentally affects women compared to men. We've seen that with the announcements that they made this week regarding the withdrawal of childcare support in this country, and it's a shame that the same effect is going to be prevalent in this early release superannuation scheme because more women are going be affected by withdrawing money from their superannuation accounts than men, simply by dint of the fact that they have smaller balances and they take breaks from the workforce.
You're also going to see in the future, as a result of this, more Australians relying on the age pension because they won't have an adequate retirement income. In the context of trying to get the budget back into a sustainable position, we all know that the budget deficit coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic is going to be substantial. When you're talking about trying to stabilise the budget, the worst thing you can do is ensure that more Australians have to rely on income support through the pension into the future, but that is exactly what this government's policy will end up doing.
It's also a great shame that this policy's effect will be to reduce the pool of investment savings that exist in Australia into the future to spur business investment and to provide funding for infrastructure investment in this country, which is going to be crucial to ensuring that we get the economy back on a growth trajectory, get productivity moving again and ultimately have the national income to reduce some of that budget deficit into the future. We've seen what's happened to business investment in this country under this government. Basically, since 2013, when this government was elected, business investment has fallen off a cliff in Australia because of this government's policies and its failure to attract and incentivise business investment in this country. Reducing the pool of investment savings by having less in people's superannuation accounts won't help spur business investment into the future but will simply prolong the recovery of the Australian economy.
All in all, what we have seen from this government's management of policies relating to COVID-19 is their incompetence writ large. It basically proves that this government are not good administrators. They are not good at delivering policies that are meant to help Australians deal with the COVID-19 situation. We have seen with JobKeeper that they overestimated the number of people who would be accessing JobKeeper to the tune of $60 billion. They found $60 billion down the back of the couch because of their incompetence in managing this scheme. We've seen their incompetence writ large with robodebt: 370,000 Australians have been affected by the administrative blunders of this government and are $721 million worse off because of this government's incompetence. Now we are seeing through the fraud related to the superannuation early release scheme and the reductions in the pool of investment funds that this government are not good administrators.
The government are not good at managing government policy on behalf of the Australian people. It's unfortunate that it's the Australian people who will suffer into the future and that the Australian economy will be prolonged in its recovery and weakened into the future.
It's wonderful to follow the former deputy chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, the member for Kingsford Smith, in speaking on this legislation. I suspect he was sacked from that job by his Labor colleagues on the basis that he wasn't prepared to stand up to the committee's chair in the last term of parliament successfully, as we drew attention to the dishonesty and misinformation that was promoted by the Labor Party regarding its campaign to whack a massive, great, big, new tax on Australian retirees.
This is a particularly sore point in the context of this legislation, because it comes back to financial regulation and financial security, which APRA oversees. Before the last election we had the Labor Party going out and smearing me and others—Australian retirees—who dared to stand up and say that if a Labor government was elected people would lose a third of their income overnight if they were an Australian self-funded retiree. They said that was misinformation and that honesty goes to the heart of the confidence you can have in the retirement security system. They said that it was misinformation, that it wasn't true, that people were exempt. They would never own up—until they lost the election, in part because of that very issue. They have now had to concede that they're not going to prosecute—or they claim they're not going to prosecute—that agenda again. But they've given themselves wiggle room. Don't misunderstand them: they want to come after Australian retirees and do a hit job on their security again.
The now Leader of the Opposition conceded after the election that, actually, they were going to hit some people who were on low incomes. In fact, what we on the economics committee said at the time was right, that the consequence of a Labor government was going to be the pushing of Australian retirees beneath the poverty line. That would have been a disgraceful action that needs to be exposed and called out. There is nothing worse than centralised authority taking from Australians their hard-earned living, their own security, through a dishonest misinformation campaign that tries to suggest that somehow they are the benefactors of public largesse. That's what this legislation ultimately goes to. Yes, it's a rudimentary piece of administrative legislation around who pays what to manage and operate our financial regulators—notably APRA. But it's about what capacity they then have to do their job to make sure we have security, trust and honesty at the heart of our financial services system.
As members in this place will know, in the last term of parliament, the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister commissioned the economics committee to have regular oversight of the four major banks. Under the stewardship of the two previous chairs as well as myself, we held regular hearings into the four major banks to reveal and uncover misconduct and questionable practice to make sure that they are properly held to account as part of a stable financial system. We had a royal commission organised by the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull which revealed further misconduct and questionable practices across the board. As a consequence, the economics committee in this term of parliament has been given a term-long inquiry to oversight the ongoing implementation and, of cause, to continue to question the financial services sector about their conduct and make sure that trust, security and confidence can be at its heart.
We have already done so and will continue to do so. Nearly one year into this inquiry, we have already revealed industry funds deliberately reactivating accounts and transferring money between themselves and into their group AUSfund so that they can harvest the hardworking savings of Australians to reactivate their accounts to harvest them for insurance and fees. Because of the work of the economics committee, the parliament has now taken action to shut down that practice for industry super to harvest low-balance inactive accounts.
Of course, we've continued to look at the misconduct in other sectors. We returned to the banks and have looked specifically at some of the challenges we've faced around ME Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of industry super funds that for five months had been conspiring to close down the account options of the people whose money they were entrusted to hold by closing down their regional facilities. For five months, they knew they wanted to do this—contestability longer—and never once did it enter their minds that they should turn around to those Australians who entrusted their money with ME Bank and tell them that they're going to shut down their options. For a not-for-profit bank that's supposed to be there to help its customers, you've got to question where their priorities sit. Worse: they told ASIC, the regulator, about the plan and ASIC said, 'If you go down this path, you have an obligation to tell customers that you are going to shut down their options and design a strategy.' To be fair to ME Bank, they did have a strategy. It was to impose silence and implement communications after they had shut down those options.
This is the misconduct that we continue to pursue through the economics committee, to make sure that there's proper accountability working with APRA and ASIC to make sure that there's accountability in our financial services system. But there is a long way to go and, trust me, I can assure you there is a long way to go. What we continue to unveil—whether it is the deliberate intention of transferring money through low-balance inactive accounts to harvest for unnecessary fees and industry super's fees-for-no-service moments or it is the misconduct of ME Bank that they then misled the parliament and the committee until the regulator exposed their dishonesty—raises broader questions about the conduct of some sectors that have gotten a free ride.
We haven't just looked at super. We've asked difficult and challenging questions of the banks—the major banks. The economics committee asked—in fact, I, as chair was the first person to ask—Westpac about their issues with AUSTRAC, which later led to the downfall of Brian Hartzer. We've spoken to the small banks, particularly around some of the challenges that they're facing but also to make sure that both they and the major banks are doing the right thing by small businesses and making sure they're passing through the cost benefits of low-cost routing. And that isn't over yet, either. In fact, in the lead-up to the next hearing on the Reserve Bank of Australia and their payment systems, I want to make sure that it's clear that we expect banks to be able to pass on to small businesses lower-cost options, rather than those being provided only to larger institutions and larger customers.
And, yes, we've looked at retail super. One of the first actions we took at the end of the last round of hearings, late last year, was to put on notice one of the largest retail super funds, AMP, that they would be recalled and there'd be an expectation that they would continue to answer questions over past conduct but also their conduct into the future.
Recently we had the insurance sector before us and we've continued to provide questions on notice to them as well, about making sure they're passing through any cost savings on insurance products to Australians who don't need extra costs associated with risk, as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. If you can't drive your car to work, why does the cost of your car insurance stay the same? If you're a small business that can't open your doors, then why are you paying the full cost of public liability insurance or other types of insurance to do with having customers? Those cost savings should be passed on. If you've got a travel insurance product and you can't go overseas, then you should get a full refund during this pandemic period.
While there are some people who go around deliberately slurring the work of the committee by saying we are focusing singularly, I can assure you: to the Labor members—even though I don't always agree with their line of questioning—we give full ambit, to make sure that we challenge every part of our financial services system so that it's acting in the best interests of the Australian consumer, unapologetically. And our expectation is that APRA and ASIC do the same.
I will say that I actually have some concerns around the practical operation of this bill because, while it is a good thing that the burden of responsibility for covering the costs of APRA is shared, one of the biggest concerns I have out of the royal commission is the broad capture that occurs between financial institutions and the regulators. We should never allow a situation where the heavy burden of the cost of running the regulator falls onto too few hands and shoulders because, when it does, it raises questions about whether the regulators are prepared to use the full extent of their powers against those who are, ultimately, compelled to feed them.
So, while I support this piece of legislation, I make it clear: we are watching you, APRA, and we are watching you, ASIC, to make sure that you are doing your job. You are entrusted, on behalf of the people of Australia and this parliament, with holding our financial institutions to account—and let me make it clear: all financial institutions. It's not just about pursuing the easy wins that appear in the newspapers from time to time, where you can take legal cases to represent activity and responsiveness. The expectation is: where there is misconduct, it will be revealed; where institutions mismanage, you will pursue them. And that goes across the whole structure of the financial services system.
I go back to the example I used just before, of ME Bank. When I look at some of the questions on notice to them that I have submitted as chair and then at the answers they have provided, it is increasingly clear to me that there are questionable financial practices within that institution, and I will have more to say about that in the future. That underlies the valuations and the assets of funds, and the retirement security that Australians have, that leads to the financial stability of the nation. APRA has a job to do to make sure that those valuations are credible. It has a responsibility to make sure that, when reports are audited, they're factual, they're evidence based, they're credible and they're comparable to other financial institutions, and that nobody is cooking the books. Anybody who thinks that simply asking questions on these important matters is an inappropriate use of this parliament's time or the committee's time is delusional, because, when you turn a blind eye to the conduct that we are supposed to be inquiring into, that is where misconduct festers. It is not in light; it is in darkness. It's what people think that they can get away with.
We saw that at the last election. Labor thought they could get away with removing up to a third of the income of Australian retirees. The economics committee provided a platform for Australian retirees to stand up and speak out and to highlight the misinformation—where people who had sacrificed their whole lives, who were living on marginal incomes, were going to be pushed below the poverty line; where families that had set up small pools of shares to support loved ones into the future were going to be robbed; and, where Australian retirees thought they could turn to security, it would have been denied. It exposed a difficult truth. Regulators have the job to expose difficult truths too—to tell the truth and to bring light to dark places. In passing this legislation, we should expect APRA to stand up and step up.
The measures contained in this package of bills, including the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020, are a modest step forward when it comes to the way in which APRA will levy industry for its funds. As such, we support these measures. As with so many bills in this place, what we see are relatively modest steps forward, but not an engagement with the broader issues touched on by pieces of legislation.
Today I want to speak about a couple of the measures in these bills, but being modest measures, as they are, I want to spend the bulk of my speech talking about some broader policy and systemic issues in the superannuation industry. The measures today impose or change the schedules, increasing the statutory limits on the amount of levies APRA can collect from the entities that it prudentially regulates. It also makes amendments to how the indexation factor used to index the statutory upper limit is calculated. These changes will allow levies to be more fairly distributed. This is particularly important with respect to the banking sector, where customer-owned banks are disproportionately affected. The APRA industry funding bill 2020 also allows for a wider range of APRA activities to be funded through industry levies. I'll take this opportunity to say that APRA, as the prudential regulator, plays a critical role in the regulation of Australia's financial services sector, and we do support measures that improve the way in which it imposes levies on the industry.
As I said, I want to spend the bulk of my contribution today talking about what I consider to be a serious policy error by the government in the design of its response to the current recession. In particular, I want to focus on the early release program with respect to people's superannuation accounts. This is a wholly unnecessary measure. Not only is it wholly unnecessary; it's very damaging to the superannuation sector and undermines one of its key precepts. I think it's important, when talking about this issue, to spend a bit of time looking at the policy underpinnings of our superannuation sector—our world-leading, path-breaking superannuation sector. I think it's worth going back three decades, to 1991. I'm going to make some references here to some speeches made by Paul Keating and the then Treasurer, John Kerin, when introducing a system that would dramatically expand private accounts so that they would be universally accessible to workers right across the economy.
Paul Keating spoke about the need for the superannuation sector to be expanded so as to provide for more dignity, more self-reliance and prosperity in retirement:
A system of more adequate private provision of retirement income sympathetically interfaced with the public pensions system will not only better provide for the aged, but is more likely to preserve the dignity and independence each have enjoyed in their preretirement years.
Keating said:
It will make Australia a more equal place, a more egalitarian place and, hence, a more cohesive and happy place.
He talked about the fact that, in addition to providing dignity in retirement for retirees, it would also have significant macroeconomic benefits. He said, 'The really attractive advantage is that a much more generous retirement income scheme will not be at the expense of the Australian economy; it will be to its immense benefit.' He said, 'Superannuation can become the biggest single source of increased private savings in the community.'
That was 1991. Fast forward three decades, and, as earlier speakers on this side have mentioned, we have the fourth-largest pool of private savings in the world—what foresight! John Kerin, the Treasurer at the time, when introducing the 1991 budget, said, 'The government's retirement income policy aims to provide adequate income support through the aged pension for those who have not been able to save during their working lives.' He also said, 'The super system will encourage those now in the prime of their working lives to provide a higher standard of retirement living for themselves through saving.' It was that key duality—the maintenance of the pension system to provide for those who hadn't been able to save for themselves while at the same time encouraging private savings so as to provide support for that. Back in 1991 Kerin was already alluding to the fact that our pension system, our old-age retirement system, needed to achieve multiple goals.
Fast forward three years. In 1994 the World Bank, in what many see as its seminal piece of work on how countries should design their retirement systems, argued that old-age pension systems should satisfy objectives both for individual people in retirement and the broader economy. For individual people in retirement, the World Bank argued there should be a savings or wage replacement function, a redistribution or policy alleviation function and a social insurance function. It argued that, for the broader economy, there should be a sustainability rationale, there should be minimisation of hidden costs that impede overall economic growth and there should be transparency. Fast forward another couple of decades. Mercer, in its world-leading evaluation of pension systems around the world, argued that one should look at pension systems through the prism of three criteria: adequacy, sustainability and integrity.
The reason I think it's important to establish that policy framework—and this is the point that the World Bank and other organisations made way back in 1994 and many times since—is that no single policy mechanism can satisfy all of those objectives. We need to have multiple policies working together. That's why we look at the United Nations approach to pensions reform. It set up what it called the three pillars: a public pension system, a mandated private savings account system and a voluntary savings account system. The World Bank adopts a similar system: non-contributory means-tested assistance to the poor; a public pay-as-you-go pension system; private occupational pension schemes—much like our super accounts; individual savings; and labour market policies aimed at extending working life.
The point is: we cannot achieve all of the policy goals that we must achieve through one mechanism alone. The World Bank, the OECD and many others have argued that the public pension must remain at the heart of social insurance. For those who aren't able to save for themselves, for those who fall by the wayside, we need to have a safety net. But the World Bank argues that it is also critically important that we have another pillar, one based on personal savings accounts: 'The important point is that it should be fully funded and privately managed but publicly regulated, and it should link benefits closely to costs.' Again, this is years after we had, in 1991, enacted exactly that framework. We were leading the world, and years later the rest of the world enacted our very framework.
So it's that pillar, the private account pillar, which those opposite are so determined to undermine. The shadow Assistant Treasurer, in recent days, has said that everybody in this place, particularly those opposite, has been saying that we should put down our weapons. Well, it's time to put down the weapons with respect to superannuation. It's time to stop undermining one of the critical pillars of our retirement system. I can even quote someone who is about as far from socialism as you can imagine: Martin Feldstein, who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to Ronald Reagan. Martin Feldstein, in his very important 2005 address to the American Economic Association, argued very strongly for private personal accounts. If one goes back to that very important speech, he was basically arguing for the Australian superannuation system. I can cite the World Bank, the OECD and leading economists from right across the political spectrum. They all say that a pillar of our retirement policy based upon private personal accounts is absolutely critical. The Keating vision has now become best practice around the world and yet those opposite, at every stage, want to undermine it.
The most recent attempt to undermine it was early release as one of their responses to COVID. When, for the vulnerable in our community, they should have been fully funding a safety net in response to their vulnerability to the COVID recession, instead what they did was to say to the most vulnerable in our community, 'Hey, why don't you self-fund part of your attempt to get out of these dire economic straits?' As the member for Maribyrnong said, there's no excuse for forcing people to raid their savings in order to cope with economic downturns such as the COVID recession that we are currently in—no excuse whatsoever.
So let's look at the way in which this is playing out. As earlier speakers on this side have said, the reason why it is so critical that we encourage people into superannuation accounts as early as possible is the magic of compound interest. Warren Buffet said:
Time is your friend, impulse is your enemy. Take advantage of compound interest and don't be captivated by the siren song of the market.
Charlie Munger, another of this century's great investors, said exactly the same. The quote that compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world is often attributed to Albert Einstein. Many have questioned whether he actually said it, but the fact that it is so plausible that such a genius would have said such a thing shows what a wise statement it is. Compound interest is absolutely critical to a private account system working.
Some opposite say, 'Well, it's their money.' What a hollow debating point on such a foundational part of our pension retirement system! If one were to use that retort, 'It's their money,' then why have a private account system at all? The argument, 'It's their money,' undermines the whole principle that people should save for their retirement years. It's simply not good enough and shows the ideological basis upon which so many of these attacks are based.
Let's look at what's happening in practice as a result of the policy that has been instituted by the government. Mercer has found that seven per cent of the 90,000 customers accessing their savings as a result of this policy have reduced their accounts to zero, totally clearing out their accounts. APRA also believes that seven per cent of the early release applications that it has had any oversight of have led to account balances of zero. When the OECD in 2012 examined critical aspects of best practice in what we should be looking for governments to do with respect to retirement incomes policy, one of their key recommendations was that we should encourage people to enrol and to contribute for long periods. It is absolutely critical that people stay in super for as long as possible to attain the benefits of compound interest.
As the member for Kingsford Smith alluded to in his speech earlier in this debate, one of the great challenges of super, for many disadvantaged groups, such as women, is that, when they have gaps in their working lives, that can lead to significant reductions in their retirement balances, and this is exactly what we are going to be imposing on a whole generation of workers. So many people now in their 20s who have cleared out their accounts are going to be starting their savings a decade behind when they should have. This is compounded by the fact that they're selling at the depths of one of the great bear markets and by the fact that many of them are going to be out of the labour market, potentially, for years. It is the worst of all possible outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our community.
By the end of May, according to ISA, around 50,000 super fund members had already wiped their super accounts to zero. That's tens of thousands of individuals who, when we fast forward decades, are going to be in a far worse position than they should have been. As alluded to by earlier speakers, so many people, whether it be Andrew Charlton and his work at AlphaBeta, whether it be ASFA or whether it be ISA—it doesn't matter who it is or what assumptions they use, they all say that this is going to result in many multiples of disadvantage down the track because of that compounding that people will miss out on.
Then, of course, there's the other side of the coin: the macroeconomic benefits that we miss out on. Keating, Kerin, the OECD, the World Bank—all of the public finance experts, and I could quote them if I had more time—allude to the fact that this second private-accounts pillar massively boosts the capital stock of a country. This has proved to be so critical in Australia in economic downturns. It was so critical in getting out of the GFC. It is going to be so critical in the investments that super will make to help us get out of this recession.
And then we can look at the counterfactual: if we don't have a strong private accounts system, what kind of tax rates are going to be required to fund the pension system? Let's look at OECD forecasts for the taxation burden of public pension systems in 2050. The forecast Australia to be 3.7; the OECD average, 9.4; Germany, 12.4; and Italy, 17.3—17.3 per cent of GDP to the pension system in Italy! These are scary numbers. Of course, it's good that we're all going to be living longer, but there's a reality to that, which is that, if we don't save more, it is going to impose massive distortionary taxes on our economy.
As earlier speakers have said, it's time that the government accepted that the Australian people like the superannuation system. It's time they accepted that world-leading experts, the OECD, the World Bank and just about every public economics expert in the world like superannuation. It's time they started supporting it, not undermining it. (Time expired)
That was an excellent contribution by the previous member. I very seldom say that in this place! We pay him a tribute. Having said that, I was going to go in a different direction but I'm going to just carry on from what he said. In spite of it being an excellent contribution, he missed the most important factor here. In another life, I sold savings contracts. They called us AMP agents. Back when I sold them, in superannuation there was a 60-40 rule: 60 per cent of all superannuation went into government securities. When that magical government in Queensland, the much-maligned Bjelke-Peterson government, built 6,000 kilometre of railway line to create the coal industry in Australia—we were a coal-importing country before they undertook that program, and then we became the biggest coal-exporting state on earth—it was done out of the superannuation moneys, that 60-40 arrangement. A retiree had a guarantee by a state government that his savings would be secure. A superannuation investor now is watching 51 per cent of his moneys go into the stock market.
The stock market is just a Ponzi scheme. I don't think there are too many people under any illusions about that. I don't make assertions in this place without backing them up. Some 20-odd years ago, $70 billion a year was going from superannuation into the stock market. Now, $1,670 billion a year is going into the stock market. If you're only bumping $70 billion a year, it'll go along fairly steady, but, if you start pumping $1,670 billion, you're going to push the prices up through the roof. Is there anything backing that up? Is there any creation of a coal industry? Is there any substance behind it? No—there's no substance behind it at all. All you've got is a bunch of kids with a shiny Master of Business Administration coming out of RMIT in Melbourne flashing their credentials around and buying and selling shares to each other. They know absolutely nothing about the shares. I'd like to ask them what 'Cenozoic' means, what 'epigenetic' means or what an 'enriched zone' in mining means. If you're going to invest in mining and you don't understand those terms, you shouldn't be investing in mining. Superannuation has been placed in the greatest of jeopardy. Fifty-one per cent is going into the stock market, and, lamentably, half of that is going into the American stock market, not the Australian stock market. I don't know what a young kid out of university is going to know about shares in an American company.
I read an article by one of the more famous people in Australian history, Bob Santamaria. I stopped reading his articles, because I thought it was a really stupid article. He said that control of world investment is now under people who are in their 30s—this was about 40 years ago—who are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and are moving around hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. I thought: 'The old fella's lost his marbles. I'm not going to read his articles anymore.' Some eight months later, Barings Bank, the oldest and one of the biggest banks in the world, was brought down because of a fellow called Nick Leeson, who was not in his 30s; he was in his 20s. He was not on hundreds of thousands a year; he was on millions of dollars a year. He wasn't pushing around hundreds of millions of dollars; he was pushing around thousands of millions of dollars. So Bob Santamaria had been wrong, alright, but he'd been wrong in the wrong way.
I became a very great acolyte of that famous man following his prescient observation that we were going into this free market system which was absolutely disastrous for the country. Instead of the money going into rail lines to open up coalfields and instead of the money going into dams to build and create irrigation for farms and security of production for our farmers, it was all going into speculation and predation. The greatest economist of all time, Hjalmar Schacht, got control of the German economy, and he confined all moneys. You couldn't raise any money over there unless it went to industry, industrial production, farming production, the renovation of houses and the building of superhighways. You didn't have any money for floating companies or playing your usual stock market games—speculation and predation were out. You're not going to get any money to build a big shopping centre that's bigger and brighter than the one that's already there so they'll leave their shopping centre and go to your shopping centre. That's where we talk about predation: I'll take over your company and sack all your administration and do it from my administration, and it'll be more efficient. Like hell it will be! You'll be more powerful, but they won't be any more efficient. That's predation: I'll build a bigger skyscraper than you; it will be newer, and everyone will leave your skyscraper and go into mine.
And speculation is typically Goldman Sachs during the Great Depression. They said, 'You float your company called Blue Horizon'—don't quote me on the names. So you floated it for, let's say, one dollar, and the representative of Goldman Sachs said yes. Then you floated a company to buy the shares in Blue Horizon. 'That's correct, yes.' And then you floated another company to buy the shares in the company that owned the shares in Blue Horizon. Then you floated another company to buy the shares in the company that owned the shares in the company that owned Blue Horizon. This is what's called a Ponzi scheme. At the end of it, there were tens of thousands of millions of dollars in that company that owned Blue Horizon, and Blue Horizon owned some worthless land in Florida swamps. That was all it owned. That's speculation. All of your superannuation is going into speculation and predation.
To return to Hjalmar Schacht: Hitler came to power, and Schacht ended up in the Dachau death camp because he was the only person in Germany on record that spoke up against the persecution of the Jews. So he was a very, very great man indeed.
Let me move to banking in Australia. I am on record as saying on many occasions that APRA is not a watchdog; APRA is a lapdog. I have had case after case after case, and they have occupied so much of my lifetime, fighting the banks. Let me just give you one case. A sugar mill got into trouble in North Queensland, as sugar mills do from time to time, and fell into the hands of an administrator. The banks put it in the hands of an administrator. The sugar mill, worth $200 million, was sold out from under the farmers for $2 million. I'm not going to go into all the details of it, but those were the basic facts of what happened. APRA was ordered twice by Wayne Swan to investigate, because he was enraged by the case. They completely ignored him. Well, they did an investigation but came back and said there were no problems, nothing to investigate.
Joe Hockey became Treasurer. He looked at the case and again twice ordered APRA to do something, and twice they ignored him—treating the elected government of Australia with absolute contempt. I think you probably know the end of the story with the Innisfail sugar mill. The bank ended up with the account of the people that it was sold to for $2 million, and the accounting firm that had done the dirty deed ended up with the auditing accounts for that company as well. So there was the payola, and APRA whitewashed it.
In Kagara Zinc we had a minority shareholders group on the board that pleaded and forced and cajoled the company into liquidation, so, when the assets were sold, the minority shareholders took up the assets, without any debt. The debt belonged to the company, Kagara. Kagara owed all this money, but, when Kagara's mining assets were sold, they were purchased by the people who were the minority shareholders—a classical round robin, where red flags should have been going up everywhere. Within two days they reported back that there was no problem. How would you investigate a complex structure like this?
I'll put it in a personal way. I was with a journalist with The Sydney Morning Herald who had run 12 major articles condemning APRA and showing that they are absolutely worthless. We were at a cafe in Sydney, and there was an older middle-aged lady serving on the tables. She wore glasses and seemed a very nice lady. She said, 'Did I hear you say the word "Kagara"?' I said: 'Yes. We're discussing Kagara and a number of other outrageous cases of nonperformance by APRA.' She said, 'I'm a schoolteacher and I lost all of my earthly savings in that mining company.' I said: 'It was a good mining company, a good investment to make, but, through chicanery, you've been taken for a ride.' She said, 'Will I get any of my $100,000 back—my entire life savings?' and I said, 'I don't think so. We're here—we're just going to write another attack upon APRA.'
If there has been a single case in my 46 years in parliament in which APRA has done anything to help anyone, I am not aware of it. Yet successive governments will leave that bunch of puppets in place, with the banks pulling the strings, again and again and again. I don't condemn Wayne Swan, because he probably would have done something, and I don't condemn Joe Hockey either. Both of them have moved on. But I think both of them had reached the point where they knew something had to happen. I wouldn't have been the only case going before them.
In Australia, the government went around congratulating itself: 'We were brought successfully through the GFC. Aren't we wunderkind!' And the banks were all parading themselves around saying, 'We have been very prudential.' What absolute rubbish. In America, they have non-recourse lending, so, if the bank lends the money to you to buy a house and you go broke, the bank forecloses on you and takes the house and your debt vanishes. So you've lost your house—you've been well and truly punished. You might have had $50,000 or $100,000 in that house. You've lost that money. But the bank also has lost, because they own the house now and they've got to sell it. So the bank shared the risk with the borrower, as it should be, and they're the businessman. A young bloke that's just started as an apprentice fitter on $40,000 a year wants to go and buy a house. The bank says, 'Yes, you can buy a house—$350,000; we'll give you the money,' knowing that he'll go broke. I sold what they call insurance, but it was investment funds. If we sold an investment fund of that type, we would lose our agency, and every other insurance company would not touch us with a 40-foot barge pole. We would be put on a list. The banks congratulate you; they promote you. The more business you do, the more people who have sold up and are broken and destroyed, the more they'll congratulate you and honour you and promote you. This is not working. APRA has to go and there has to be a standard form contract. (Time expired)
I would like to thank all those members who have made a contribution to this debate on the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020. The bill will ensure that the legislative framework for financial institutions supervisory levies keeps up with the ever-evolving industry. Recent events have highlighted how important the large institutions are in the financial services sector, and it's absolutely critical that regulation reflects their importance in the market.
Through addressing legislative impediments, this package of bills will enable large institutions to be levied their appropriate share of APRA costs. This will ensure no more deferrals of levies on those institutions that create the greatest regulatory burden. In turn, Australia will see a prudential regulatory approach funded in continuing to address financial stability, in protecting the Australian community. It is only appropriate that all sizes of institutions pay their proportionate amount of these costs. Industry have supported these changes, and these amendments will provide certainty for many institutions during this unfortunate coronavirus crisis.
As the financial services sector evolves through technology and innovation, the nature of regulation will need to keep pace. Therefore, regulatory activities in regard to prudential regulatory institutions are required to adapt. The amendments will ensure that the cost of regulatory activities, for which the Commonwealth collects through APRA, can continue to be collected in a dynamic regulatory environment. I commend this bill to the House.
The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Deputy Speaker Mitchell, I commend you on your facial hair as well! I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that Australia's higher education system is failing our kids, workers and businesses, due to Coalition Government policies that have:
(1) slashed funding from higher education and vocational education and training;
(2) restricted access to university, with 200,000 Australians locked out of university; and
(3) abandoned our regions".
I rise to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019. Labor will support this bill and the introduction of deterrents to academic cheating services in higher education. The bill implements recommendations made by the Higher Education Standards Panel. The panel concluded:
… inadequately constrained cheating activity has the potential to cause great damage to the domestic and international reputation of Australian higher education.
We know that these fears are both serious and widely held. A survey of academics found that, in their experience, more than two-thirds of university staff suspected that pieces of submitted work were not written by the relevant student. There is currently no Australian jurisdiction with offences aimed specifically at deterring or punishing organised cheating services. Labor understands the importance of higher education to this country, and we will support legislation that defends its integrity. We know there is strong support in the sector for legislation to safeguard academic standards in Australian universities.
The bill creates an offence of providing, offering to provide or arranging for a third person to provide an academic cheating service to a student undertaking a higher education course in Australia. This contains different offences for services that operate commercially and those that do not. Commercial services will face both criminal and civil penalties, while services not operating commercially will face civil penalties.
The bill also creates an offence of the publication or broadcasting of an advertisement for one of these cheating services at proposed section 114B. Labor has had some concerns about the design of this offence. A breach of section 114B(1) gives rise to a criminal offence and is subject to a maximum penalty of two years in prison or 500 penalty units, or both, in circumstances where the advertised cheating service is operating for a commercial purpose or if the person broadcasting the advertisement does so for a commercial purpose. So a person could publish an advertisement for an academic cheating service that is operating for a commercial purpose, and that person might receive no personal benefit from the conduct but still be subject to prosecution for breaching this provision and face a potential jail term. Labor was concerned that this bill could unintentionally capture vulnerable students who are simply forwarding or sharing electronically an advertisement for commercial services, even if it's disguised as something more innocent and even if the student is unaware of exactly what they're sharing. As the explanatory memorandum acknowledges, these can be sophisticated and persuasive operations that are actually aimed at vulnerable people and often promoted as an altruistic service.
We've discussed these concerns with Minister Tehan, who has committed to amending the explanatory memorandum. I particularly thank Minister Tehan, and his advisers especially, for being very cooperative with my office. I've been assured that the addendum to the explanatory memorandum will now note that the intent of this bill is not to prosecute those who inadvertently promote a cheating service—for example, on social media where there's no proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness. Again, I thank the minister for acknowledging Labor's concerns and making these changes. As I said at the start, Labor supports measures that deter academic cheating services.
But we want to make sure that the legislation doesn't implicate vulnerable students who have received no personal benefit from their actions or are ignorant of what these services actually involved. Labor is very concerned about vulnerable students in the higher education system being targeted by cheating services. On top of the deterrence included in the bill, we would encourage universities to offer and publicise support services for any students who are struggling so that instead of being tempted by these predatory operations they actually have somewhere trusted to go to for help, support, advice and guidance.
This is particularly important for those international students who are so far from their homes and families, particularly in a time of pandemic, and separated from their usual personal support systems and perhaps have come to Australia with high family expectations as well. Over the past decade—in fact, right up until the pandemic hit this year—the number of international students in Australian universities had increased dramatically. We have a duty to support people in what can be a very challenging experience for some. We've had issues with universities enrolling students who may struggle to meet course requirements, particularly with the English language, or who might struggle with the language standards generally, which make these students particularly vulnerable to the kinds of services that this bill is designed to deter—the rogues who will profit from people's fear of failure at university. These situations are often made worse by the circumstances international students face at their work, where sadly many have experienced wage theft or experienced exploitation of other sorts.
A recent survey by the United Workers Union of more than 200 international students found that 25 per cent of the people who responded were paid less than $10 an hour, 60 per cent earned less than the national minimum wage and 76 per cent did not receive penalty rates for weekend or night work. This only compounds the pressure placed on international students—stress at work on top of the stress of university. In fact, at the moment, some of them are in such stress that they don't even have enough food to survive. This only compounds the pressure placed on international students. We need to address these symptoms, but we also need to address the deeper causes.
This is not just important for the students we're taking in but important for the health of our higher education system itself. Services like this survive by their international reputation, and the reputation of Australian universities has copped a battering among international students over the past few months. Some might suggest that it all started when the bloke responsible for the 'Where the bloody hell are you?' campaign said, 'Why the bloody hell are you here?' When the Prime Minister said, 'Go home,' to our international students, that actually delivered a big blow to our reputation. I hope his words weren't deliberate and divisive and that they weren't part of some cheap political point scoring and that maybe he just misspoke, but it was certainly not what we needed and not with the international university sector needed.
Since then, we've seen international students lined up around the block. I heard on AM this morning about the stressful situation for Brazilian students at the Gold Coast. We've seen international students desperate for a free meal and not getting any support from the federal government. I've seen the Korean community in my electorate lining up to actually give food to some of these students, but not everyone is as well organised as the Korean community. Many of them are cut off from support networks.
So what are these international students going to tell their friends and family about Australia when they get home? They are some of the best diplomats we have, which is especially important at a time when DFAT funding has gone down over the last seven years and when our aid program has gone down over the last seven years. One of our best ambassadors have been the people who've been turning up from our universities, but what are they going to say?
We are talking about an industry that provides Australia with some of its most significant export income—its third-biggest, in fact—that provides huge value to regional communities and that is vital to this country's ongoing economic prosperity. It is a system that this government seems to be deliberately throwing under a bus.
Investing in Australian universities has always been good for this nation. The minister himself acknowledged that productivity improvements in the sector can increase economic growth by $2.7 billion a year, but the Morrison government is now sitting by and watching as universities shed jobs, close campuses, and cut back on courses and degrees. In fact, the Morrison government has gone out of its way to exclude universities from some of the COVID support programs. The Morrison government has repeatedly changed its policy, in order to stop university staff from accessing wage subsidies, and it is putting thousands of jobs at risk. We have already learnt that hundreds of jobs will go in Geelong and Warrnambool, where Deakin University announced they would be losing 400 jobs, and in Rockhampton, where Central Queensland University has announced that three campuses will close—the Sunshine Coast, Yeppoon and Biloela—resulting in up to 180 jobs. I haven't seen the National Party speaking up for these rural and regional universities. We have also seen it in Melbourne and Bendigo, with La Trobe flagging job losses. Where are The Nationals when it comes to speaking up for their universities? Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of a sector-wide crisis, I suggest. From consultations that the member for Sydney and I have had with the universities, we know that so many of them are under stress. It will only get worse next year. If we don't have students arriving, that might actually lock in long-term problems.
The impact of these losses on regional communities will be particularly devastating. Universities support 14,000 jobs in country Australia, the home of The Nationals. They help underpin the local economy in countless towns. Across the board we're looking at tens thousands of livelihoods being destroyed. We're talking about academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners, security, and so many others, all people living in country towns and country cities, all with families and with bills to pay and commitments to meet. Why has the Morrison government gone out of its way to exclude these workers, and are the Nationals now officially the 'silent Australians' in the Coalition agreement? Why is the Prime Minister so determined to abandon universities? At this point this action seems like a deliberate attack on Australian higher education.
This has never been Labor's approach to universities and it never will be. When Labor was last in government we made changes to ensure that university education was accessible to all and that access was never limited by background or location. We wanted and needed our smartest people to go to university. We boosted investment from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. We opened up the system, uncapping places, giving an additional 190,000 of our brighter people a spot at university. This decision was driven by our commitment to improving Australia's productivity and our commitment to breaking down disadvantage and inequality in the system. It succeeded in bringing in new people to university. Indigenous enrolments went up. More Australians with disability entered the system, as did people from regional and remote areas.
Education helps to create jobs and results in higher wages and a better quality of life for all Australians. This should be the guiding principle of Australian education policy—a vision of equity and productivity, supported by funding and resources. Sadly, it's not a vision shared by the myopic Morrison government, which is watching thousands of jobs go and campuses close, and is doing nothing to stop it.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to this the honourable member of Moreton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view of substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I call the member for Higgins.
From the co-discovery of penicillin to aircraft black boxes, wi-fi and Google Maps, Australia has always prided itself as a country of ingenuity. The higher education sector in Australia plays a critical role in driving innovation and productivity as well as equipping students with the necessary skills for future success. My background as a professor at not just one but two universities—one here and one in the UK—gives me a strong appreciation for the higher education sector. I will always be a champion for efforts to strengthen and grow the sector here in Australia.
I've taught across the full spectrum of educational sectors and supervised dozens of higher-degree students. It's been a great privilege to teach these young students, a privilege that I have taken very seriously. Not only was I teaching them research methodologies and content expertise but I was also providing guidance on how to approach their subject with an ethical and open mind. I actually think Brand Australia has, at the heart of it, a very authentic, ethical, pragmatic approach to education, learning, academia and the pursuit of higher education, and central to that is the concept of integrity.
In recent decades there has been tremendous growth in the number of students pursuing higher education in Australia. As of 2016, approximately 56 per cent of Australian 19-year-olds undertake post-secondary-school qualifications, jumping from 41 per cent a decade ago. At the same time, those pursuing a postgraduate degree rose by 46 per cent. With regard to post-secondary-school qualifications, my own children currently contribute to the statistics. This has occurred alongside Australia emerging as the third-most-popular destination for international students in the English-speaking world. That is something to be proud of, particularly when we know that Australia is a long way from Europe and the US. Prospective students are drawn to our proximity in the Asia-Pacific region, and we are respected for our institutions but also for our way of life and, as I said before, our way of thinking. We are a reflection of the culture that we embody.
Economically, the provision of education to overseas students amounts to $32 billion as an industry. Additionally, the emergence of virtual learning technology, really pioneered here in Australia, is allowing more Australians than ever before to pursue higher education. From 2011 until 2015, domestic enrolments from regional locations increased by 17 per cent—this is very pleasing—and Indigenous enrolments increased by 38 per cent. One in four Australian students are now completing university units online. It is literally a plethora of opportunity.
As our fourth-biggest export, it is crucial that we endeavour to maintain confidence and integrity in the higher education sector. However, the growth of our education sector and the development of technology have also coincided with the development of third-party academic cheating services. This commonly involves the provision of academic material for student assessment or impersonating a student in an exam or a practical test. This is big business. Companies such as MyMaster and EssayMill reaped $160,000 in 2014, before being investigated.
I commend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019 for seeking to curtail this activity and safeguarding the integrity of the higher education sector. The bill will make it an offence to provide, arrange or advertise academic cheating services to students studying with Australian higher education providers and imposes harsh criminal and civil penalties. TEQSA will be appointed to enforce the new laws and will be empowered to gather intelligence, investigate and prosecute offenders. Importantly, the bill targets the providers of cheating services, not the students who might use such services. Instead, those who cheat will remain subject to their institution's own academic integrity policies. This is important, as third-party academic cheating services often target vulnerable international students. I have experience, in my own professional life, of seeing young students from Asia with poor English struggling to deal with their courses and being targeted by these terrible services.
Furthermore, university administrative services are often stretched as they attempt to meet the complex needs of international students in Australia. This bill is an important step in protecting the value of our international students and the value of our higher education sector. And we do value the sector. The bill, importantly, sends a message to employers that Australia takes the integrity of its higher education system and its graduates very seriously.
The University of Melbourne flagged concerns in 2019 that punitive measures would be imposed against unpaid assistance under the proposed bill. This has been addressed by exempting legitimate academic services, such as certified tutoring companies, from the bill. The bill therefore appropriately balances the preference of universities that they address the issue of unpaid assistance through existing academic integrity frameworks.
The value of our higher education sector relies on us protecting its integrity. This bill equips TEQSA with the appropriate tools to stamp out third-party academic cheating services and ensure our education institutions remain world-class. It will ensure that universities remain competitive on a global scale and an attractive destination for students and will also make our graduates more attractive to our employers.
Australia is not the only country susceptible to the threat of third-party academic cheating services. However, by taking stern action we will safeguard the reputation and legacy of our academic pioneering. I'm pleased to support this important bill.
I thank the member for Higgins. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Labor supports the intention of this bill, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019, and will be supporting this bill. It is of course very important that we have a strong integrity system everywhere: in this parliament, in our general lives and in our university systems.
People struggle at university. We know this. We also know that people from vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds particularly struggle at university. Many people go to university as the first person in their family to do so, and it has been a matter of aspiration and hard work and sacrifice to get there. But, for someone who is the first person in their family to attend university, it can be a shock to the system. It can be a difficult place, because they don't come from a family or a community where people know what university is like and have been there before and can talk them through the difficulties. Particularly in some parts of my community, in the electorate of Dunkley, those young men and women who've worked so hard to get to university and are the first person from their family to go to university often come from financial disadvantage. So they have dual burdens. They have to adapt to this new way of life, to the burden of learning in a way that they haven't had to learn before, because it's all about personal responsibility and where they don't have, necessarily, the guidance of the teachers or tutors—though they wouldn't have had tutors because they were at public schools—that they've had in high school. On top of that, they also have the burden of balancing their social life and having to work just to support themselves, to be able to buy the textbooks and the other things that are needed to get by and to pay the rent. So it's easy to see how vulnerable students who don't have a support network around them can be targeted by these professional organisations for cheating.
So this bill is important. But what is also important is that we make sure vulnerable students get assistance so that they're not an easy target for these commercial operations that want to benefit from the cheating, that we target the commercial operations and that we help the students who are, by and large, their victims. I and my Labor colleagues urge governments and universities to work together to make sure that proper support is there.
I urge this government, as it is looking at JobKeeper, to look at two groups who have been left out that are relevant to this legislation—that is, vulnerable students and casuals who haven't been in the same workplace for 12 months. Many of the people I've spoken about are young students who are working to support themselves—not for extra pocket money—to get through university and, of course, the universities themselves. I'll return to that point.
There is no doubt that investing in and maintaining our world-class universities is good for everyone. Education is the ticket. There is no doubt that education is the ticket. We know that a university education adds to Australia's productive capacity about $140 billion in GDP and we know that Australia will require an extra 3.8 million university qualifications by 2025. We won't do that with a government that continues to cut funding to universities and to research and which excludes universities from any support package to get through COVID-19 and the economic consequences. By capping university places, cutting $2.2 billion from the system and locking more than 200,000 students out of the opportunity of a university qualification, this government is doing the current generation and future generations of Australians a massive disservice. Cutting $328.5 million from university research is something to be ashamed of. The minister himself said at the National Press Club that productivity improvements in the higher education sector can deliver $2.7 billion to Australia's GDP per annum. How can that occur when universities are experiencing the cuts that I've talked about?
Universities provide a cauldron for research, for knowledge, for culture and for learning but they're also economic drivers within the community. We know in my community of Dunkley of the economic benefits and opportunities for young people from our community, particularly young people who may well be the first person in their family to attend university, that the Peninsula campus of Monash University brings. The university campus in our community also brings a sense of pride. We can point to it as part of our culture of learning, of striving, of betterment and, in particular, of doing courses that then benefit the community. Studying paramedic medicine, studying nursing, studying early childhood, doing research into addiction and mental health problems, being part of a community with a university that's partnering with the Peninsula Health and Frankston Hospital to build a centre of excellence to do research into healthy ageing and doing research into how to better help people who suffer from addictions and mental health problems bring a sense of pride for my community. The university campus is a source of economic input and will provide an opportunity for people from my community to study and be part of world-class cutting-edge research in our own backyard. But these things won't be able to happen at the level we want them to if universities continue to be left to fend for themselves during the COVID-19 pandemic and coming out of it.
In May of this year, as one of the members of parliament which has a campus of Monash University in their electorates, I received a letter from Professor Margaret Gardner, the president and vice-chancellor of the university. The letter was sent to all members of parliament who have a campus in their electorate. The vice-chancellor was writing to let us know the significant issues that universities were facing then and would continue to face if they didn't get government support. I quote:
The economic effects of the crisis are now being felt by Monash and other Australian universities and there are no signs of recovery on the horizon. For Monash, 2020 and 2021 will be the most challenging circumstances we have ever faced. We have lost a large portion of the financial ability to support the current quality of our education and research. Our loss will be felt throughout the community; for every dollar lost, the community will lose close to two dollars supporting employment in every other sector.
The crisis is creating hardship among our students. It is also hampering Monash's ability to continue to invest in research and infrastructure and to maintain our hard-fought reputation in a hugely competitive global market.
Enrolments for Semester 1 are now confirmed and we can predict the likely financial outcomes for this year. The 2020 revenue shortfall for Monash is $350 million—
because primarily of a fall in student fees. Monash Peninsula campus has experienced a 43 per cent decline in enrolments for business studies, primarily due to a loss of foreign-student enrolments. I'll go on to quote from the letter:
To address the shortfall in our 2020 revenue the University has made reductions of approximately $100 million of capital works, and reduced operating costs by around $200 million. Some $80 million of these cost reductions will come from a freeze on staff recruitment, the reduction in casual and sessional staff (which we have tried to minimise), and a 20 per cent pay cut taken by the Senior Executive.
The university is also drawing on cash reserves and is increasing borrowing. The vice-chancellor wrote:
At present, we face this crisis largely relying on our own resources. The guarantee of Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) funding has no effect on Monash finances since it is payment for the domestic students we currently have enrolled. Less than one-third of Monash's total revenue comes from the CGS and Higher Education Loan Program payments.
Yet the vice-chancellor confirmed:
Despite these challenges Monash remains committed to continuing to play an active role in supporting the community.
That was in May. Despite repeated calls from me, my Labor colleagues, the shadow minister, universities, unions and students, the government has continued to refuse to do anything to support our universities that it says it values, the students it says it values or the research it says it values, to get through this crisis. It's not good enough. It's just not good enough.
We could see 21,000 jobs being lost in the next six months. We know that it's hitting regional universities very hard. We know that for every dollar of revenue lost by universities $2 is lost to the community. The federal government can't explain why a university student working a $100 shift per week receives the full $1,500 JobKeeper wage subsidy but a full-time university worker with kids to support is not eligible. We're relying on our brilliant universities and researchers to find a vaccine for COVID-19, but they can't rely on this government to protect their jobs.
Released just today was a substantial study by Monash University, the biggest study done into the impact of the social restrictions on young people in Australia. It is a really important piece of work that gives us insights into why loneliness and isolation is linked to mental health issues. It's a substantial piece of work that gives insights into how we can help people who have been impacted by social isolation and loneliness to be positive about the future, to help avoid significant mental health impacts and to help deal with the ones they're already feeling.
If we don't have universities like Monash University, then our society, our community, will be diminished. It will be diminished because people from communities like mine—people who don't have mums and dads, grandmas and grandpas, and great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers who are university graduates with white-collar jobs, and who don't grow up in families of lawyers and bankers but are working so hard to have a better future for themselves—won't be able to go to university. They won't be able to go to university if universities end up having to impose enormous fees on students in order to survive. They won't be able to contribute what we know they can with their brilliant minds if universities are not supported by this government.
So it really is great that the government is bringing in this legislation to try to crack down on commercial cheaters. But it's not enough to support this really crucial sector and all of the work that it does.
I rise to support the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019. This bill will make it an offence to provide or advertise academic cheating services to, or arrange academic cheating services for, students studying with Australian higher-education providers either here in Australia or overseas.
Cheating is not a new phenomenon. I would proffer a guess that since the modern university has existed there have been occurrences of students cheating—and by 'cheating', I mean putting forward work that is not, either in whole or in part, of your own doing. The ways in which it can occur vary, but typical examples include: copying someone else's work or ideas; getting somebody else to write your essays or do your work, either in full or in part; and copying wades of text from reputable sources, without citing them, with the intent of passing it off as your own work.
Just as cheating isn't new in the university context, nor are the responses or approaches that universities have taken to address it. Maintaining and preserving the academic integrity of a university, given that it goes to the heart of a university's purpose and reputation, has been a primary focus and concern of university governing boards and academics for a very long time. There have always been university statutes and rules setting out penalties for breaches of academic integrity.
In more recent times, and with the guidance of TEQSA and the Higher Education Standards Panel, all universities have invested significant time and resources in addressing cheating. They've implemented new initiatives to educate students about academic integrity and to promote good student conduct. Yes, we're all worried about vulnerable students. Yes, we're all worried about those students who come to university who may not know the rules about how to cite or refer to other texts. Universities all run introductory-level courses, and maintain them throughout the degree's progress, to educate students and make sure that they are aware.
Universities are also taking steps to promote a wider understanding across the sector of the best types of assessment, to minimise opportunities for fraudulent activity by students. They've also invested significantly in new mechanisms to detect cheating and to detect academic fraud. There has been a concerted effort by the university sector where universities have worked together to share best practices, and universities should be highly commended on the action that they have taken.
At the same time, universities have been faced by increasing challenges in the contract cheating area. Contract cheating is the purchase of somebody else's work to present it as your own. While it's not new, the ready availability of sophisticated communication technology and the rise of social media have increased the opportunity to access and/or repurpose another person's work to present it as your own. The availability of essay-writing services is pervasive, with both local and international websites advertising their services. In fact, prior to coming into the chamber I did a quick google search, typing in 'I want to buy an essay on torts'. Immediately, 10 sites came up on the first page. The parliamentary blocker blocked the first site, I'm pleased to say, but I managed to get through to the second website, where I could have purchased an essay on torts had I chosen to do so—I didn't.
In looking into this, the Higher Education Standards Panel noted in a report in 2017:
No Australian jurisdiction currently has offences on the books specifically aimed at deterring or punishing cheating by students or organised cheating services.
Instead, what we've got is an array of laws, civil and criminal, across all of the jurisdictions, which potentially could be used, but there are significant hurdles with all of them. So the Higher Education Standards Panel came to the conclusion that, in order to assist universities and the sector in general in their steps to address the rising concern of contract cheating, additional legislation is required.
The amendments to the TEQSA Act which are being put forward in this bill are based on the advice of the Higher Education Standards Panel. In accordance with that advice, this legislation is aimed at those who provide cheating services and not at the students who might use such services. Students who cheat remain subject to the institutions' own academic integrity policies, their own processes and their own sanctions.
An exposure draft version of the bill was publicly released on 7 April last year for comment, and there has been strong stakeholder support for the legislation. For those providers that offer academic cheating services, criminal and civil penalties of up to two years jail, and fines of up to 500 penalty units—around $100,000—will apply where the cheating service or advertising is for a commercial purpose. Civil penalties will also apply where the cheating service is provided without remuneration. Strict liability will apply to the criminal offence of providing an academic cheating service in order to undermine services' tactics of putting up disingenuous disclaimers regarding the purpose and use of their products.
TEQSA will be appointed to enforce the new law, with its powers to include monitoring, intelligence gathering, investigation and prosecution of identified offenders. TEQSA will have additional power to collect and disseminate information about cheating websites and their users to help institutions combat cheating activity on campus, but with safeguards to protect unwarranted sharing of personal information about those who purchase cheating materials. TEQSA will have the ability to seek court injunctions to force internet service providers and search engines to block cheating websites.
Ensuring academic integrity in our higher education system is of vital importance. The consequences of not having a robust and multifaceted approach to ensuring academic integrity can result in great damage to the domestic and international reputation of Australian higher education. It's also a risk to employers. How do you know that the person that you're employing actually did all of the work that led to their qualification? It is a risk to student mobility. Once our border restrictions are lifted and our students are able to travel internationally to undertake further studies, if the academic integrity of our system has been put under attack and is in question then the mobility of our students, either as students or as graduates, will be greatly harmed. It also undermines the integrity of all of the certifications. Academic integrity is key to universities. It is key to our Australian university sector, and we must ensure that what we do protects and enhances that.
This bill, as I said, reinforces the work that has already been undertaken by universities and by TEQSA to educate students about academic integrity, to promote good student conduct, and to prevent and detect academic fraud. The amendments being put forward in this bill address a missing element of the current steps. I'm happy to commend this bill to the House.
It's 12 June 2020, and this piece of legislation was tabled in the chamber on 4 December 2019. We've had at least eight sitting weeks since then, so it's good to see it finally find its way here for debate and to become law. It does demonstrate, however, this government's absolute lack of commitment to this sector overall.
I rise to join my colleagues in support of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019. Importantly, this bill seeks to criminalise and create an offence for providing, offering to provide or arranging for a third person to provide a cheating service to a student at one of our institutions of higher education. This isn't about stopping collaboration, importantly, or about penalising people for incidental or inconsequential assistance. It's about putting an end to systematic criminal cheating.
There is currently no Australian jurisdiction with offences specifically aimed at deterring or punishing cheating by students or organised cheating services, and that's something I'm glad we are here finally fixing. As the Higher Education Standards Panel noted in their advice to the minister in March 2017:
… inadequately constrained cheating activity has the potential to cause great damage to the domestic and international reputation of Australian higher education.
Australia's higher education system is one of the best in the world. That's why it is our third-largest export. The market for international education was valued at $18.8 billion by the Bureau of Statistics in 2014-15. It is crucial that our universities maintain their reputations as institutions with rigorous academic standards and a firm commitment to academic integrity. That's why I'm glad to see this bill introduce tough offences for cheating, with commercial cheating service operators facing penalties of up to two years in prison.
I do worry, however, that, with this bill, we'll look past what's causing this rise in the academic cheating market. In order for there to be commercial cheating rings, there has to be a significant amount of demand. We need to ask ourselves: why are students studying in Australia turning to cheating? Without a doubt, the business model of academic cheating services is becoming more insidious. We know that these cheating organisations have slick online ads and present themselves as legitimate services providing assistance to students undergoing academic stress, while doing something very different.
Universities and higher education providers have already done a great deal to provide and publicise support services for students, but clearly universities need more support so they can do more to ensure that students are able to get through their time at university successfully, without reaching out to a cheating service. This is particularly important for regional, rural or international students, who may be away from family and friends for the first time.
Over the last decade, the number of overseas students studying in Australia has increased sharply. There were more than 350,000 international students enrolled in the higher education sector in 2017. While I've heard the stereotypes of cashed-up foreign students coming here with fancy cars and designer labels, the reality on the ground in my electorate is that a lot of international students, burdened with the dreams of their families and an unimaginable fear of failure, do it incredibly tough. A recent survey by United Voice, of more than 200 international students, found that 25 per cent of those responding received $10 an hour or less in paid work; 60 per cent earned less than the national minimum wage; 79 per cent said they knew little or nothing about their rights at work; and 76 per cent said they did not receive penalties for weekend or night work.
Many international students are here desperate to make a better life for themselves. Unfortunately the economic reality of being a student in Australia, particularly an exploited working student in Australia, means that many students are unable to give their studies appropriate attention. As these important new protections are put in place, the government and universities need to make sure proper support services are in place and clearly publicised so when people are struggling they have somewhere to turn for help and assistance.
It is also important that we ask ourselves why universities are struggling to get across to their students. Has anything impacted the quality of teaching and learning in universities in Australia? The better part of a decade of conservative cuts to university has certainly taken a toll—capping places, cutting $2.2 billion from the system, locking more than 200,000 students out of the opportunity of a university qualification, and cutting $328.5 million from university research. And the universities had been abandoned by the government's COVID-19 response. This anti-intellectual government has done everything in its power to silence and diminish the influence of our experts.
I understand that this is a complicated and challenging world, but the fact that we need a bill like this to deter students from accessing cheating services saddens me as an educator. We've turned our places of higher learning into factories for jobs. Kids are there to get the piece of paper that will help them end up in any office that will give them a consistent pay cheque. That's not the kind of academic culture that will foster the innovation this country needs to deal with everyday life, let alone COVID-19, nor the challenges we were dealing with before this and certainly not the challenges we are yet to discover. But that's the culture that is fostered when you make having a HECS debt more onerous. It's the culture you foster when you slash funding to universities. It's the culture you foster when you disrespect research. The minister himself said at the National Press Club that productivity improvements in the higher education sector can deliver $2.7 billion to Australia's GDP a year. How will this be achieved when the government's policy is to cut everything? The Treasurer has a spare $60 billion that he can't give back to the bank. He should spend some of it in the sector that's going to see Australia through the foreseeable future.
For weeks now, Labor has been urging the federal government to act to help universities and save jobs. Their reluctance to do so speaks volumes about what they really think about this incredibly important sector. But the Prime Minister has done nothing to help, and now jobs are being lost, with thousands more to come. The federal government keeps moving the goalposts to stop staff at universities from getting fair access to JobKeeper, and that's putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk, including many in regional Australia. Already we've heard that hundreds of jobs will go at universities in Geelong—at Deakin, 400 jobs—in Rockhampton, with 180 staff gone last week and three campus closures, at Sunshine Coast, Yeppoon, Biloela, and in suburban Melbourne, at La Trobe. Without serious federal government help, universities have predicted, 21,000 jobs will be lost in the next six months alone.
The impact on regional communities will be devastating. Universities support 14,000 jobs in country Australia—that's tens of thousands of livelihoods destroyed. We're talking about academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners, security staff and many others, many with families trying to make ends meet. The federal government cannot explain why a university student working a $100-shift per week is receiving the full $1,500 JobKeeper wage subsidy while a full-time university worker with kids to support is not eligible, and they have refused to date to do anything to change this.
We're relying on our brilliant universities and their researchers to find a vaccine for COVID-19, but they can't rely on this Prime Minister to protect their jobs. University jobs can be saved, if only this government would act and act now. If I were the government right now, I wouldn't want to look back after thousands of job losses, including in regional Australia, and know that more could have been done.
I also rise today to take the opportunity to point out the difference between the attitude of those opposite to this important sector and the attitude of my colleagues. In government, Labor continued to ensure that university education did not remain out of reach for everyday young people like the people I represent in Lalor. In order to achieve this goal, Labor invested in universities and supported them when they needed it. In fact, Labor's policy saw an extra 222,000 Australians get the opportunity of a university education. This included enrolments of financially disadvantaged students, which increased by 66 per cent. Enrolments of Indigenous undergraduate students increased by 105 per cent. Enrolments of undergraduate students with a disability grew by 123 per cent, and, under Labor, enrolments of students from regional and remote areas increased by 50 per cent.
In my time here, Labor has supported any and every positive measure the government has brought into this place in this sector, including today. This has included increased support for regional students so that they can better support themselves away from home while they study. Labor stood with the government to do that. And we've done this while, in Labor-held electorates like Lalor, opportunities for young people have shrunk, and despite growing youth unemployment and underemployment. Capping student numbers locks out young people from the electorate I represent. Increasing HECS debts and reducing the income threshold for repayments actively discourages students from pursuing tertiary education. And opportunities in VET have also shrunk under this government, driven by cuts to public TAFE. Under this government, we've seen the loss of 150,000 apprenticeships, and the projections in the recession are truly mortifying. We are losing 2,000 apprentices a week as we meet here today.
But what does this government do when we call out the impacts of their cuts across the sectors, both vocational education and training and higher education, and the shrinking opportunities for young people across the country? What do they do when we call out the deadening effect this has on aspiration for children in the regions, for children in the suburbs? What is their response? Well, their response is to indulge in culture war rhetoric. They deride higher education and shout that vocational education and training is as worthy—as if there is anybody else on the other side of the argument. In short, they reach for a distraction, a faux debate, to hide their deliberate failure to support the next generation. This leaves me absolutely despondent.
Those opposite don't intend to restore opportunity for the young people I represent and young people across this country. Their actions speak volumes about their disinterest in this. If those opposite want to have a serious debate about aspiration, if they seriously want to raise vocational education and training in the eyes and minds of the public, they should have a real conversation with business about the age-old responsibility for business to actively train the workforce of the future. They should engage immediately with the businesses who have lost and who are losing apprentices in this recession. They should thank them for meeting this unwritten obligation, this social compact, and they should be properly supporting them to hang on to every single one of those apprentices. But, no, none of that is happening. If they want to address the skills short that we are seeing, if they want business to thrive, if they want to plan a way out of this recession, they need to acknowledge the damage of their cuts to vocational and higher education and get serious about supporting young people and their aspirations.
As ever, I join my colleagues to support a sensible measure today but I am appalled that the real issues confronting vocational and higher education in this country, now heightened by the economic pain of a recession and the urgent need to plan for recovery, are left fallow for another term of this government.
I thank all members for their contribution to this debate on the Tertiary Education Quality and Safeguards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019. It clearly shows that this government is taking a strong stand against cheating services which tarnish the reputation of our higher education sector. The strong penalties in this bill will significantly deter the provision and advertising of academic cheating services. The capacity to block cheating websites will make it harder for students in Australia to access these services. I would like to thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for its consideration of the bill.
As requested by the committees, I now present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to explain the compatibility of the civil penalties in the bill with the processes used in the criminal law and reasons for placing the burden of proof on the defendant for particular offences.
I would also like to thank the opposition for their constructive engagement to the bill. Several other amendments to the explanatory memorandum have been made to provide additional clarification on matters they and other stakeholders have raised. These include clarifying that students who publish their old essays will not be subject to prosecution under the bill and that people who inadvertently promote cheating services on social media will also not be affected.
This bill will ensure public confidence in the quality of graduates from our higher education institutions and stop unscrupulous cheating services praying on vulnerable students. Once again, I thank everyone for their engagement. I commend this bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Moreton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020. I will also move an amendment that has been circulated in my name, particularly drawing attention to some of the concerns that have been happening in recent days within the early education and care sector, but I will get back to that shortly. I move:
That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) the Government will snap back to the complex and expensive child care subsidy system on 13 July and end its poorly targeted and unfunded 'free child care' response;
(2) families will start paying child care fees again, even after the Treasurer admitted Australia was in a recession, and fees soared by 7.2 per cent in the last year;
(3) unaffordable child care will now force families, particularly women, to reconsider returning to work and could act as a handbrake on Australia's economic recovery; and
(4) early childhood workers have been ripped out of the JobKeeper program, three days after the Prime Minister promised there would be no changes until September'.
I am pleased to be speaking on this bill. It wasn't long ago that we were in this place debating the first round of touch-ups that the government needed to make on their childcare system. Labor was pleased to support those changes late last year, with one exception. They were sensible and overdue fixes to some of the most obvious flaws in the government's childcare subsidy system. They were changes which Labor, families and the early learning and care sector had been calling for for over a year. I'm pleased to be back again to help fix some of the government's flaws in the system and I'm pleased that we are actually here debating this bill.
This bill does seek to make a number of changes to the administration of the additional child care subsidy (child wellbeing) payment. The additional child care subsidy (child wellbeing) payment is a vital program that provides a safe and nurturing learning environment for children in extremely vulnerable situations at home. For most of these children, it can be the difference between being able to stay at home and having to go into the child protection system.
It is critical the government treat this program with sensitivity and ensure families and providers are not overly burdened with red tape. The government has done exactly this when they introduced a number of new requirements and rules to the access of the additional childcare subsidy in July 2018. This government likes to often bang the drum about cutting red tape—and it's one of the media releases in regular rotation—but unfortunately this did not extend to cutting red tape for vulnerable children and families. So there is the question: why did they go out of their way to increase red tape for vulnerable families and the childcare providers trying to help them? It does say something about their values and how they view these members of our community.
The numbers prove that the government's new rule had a serious impact on vulnerable children and families trying to access early learning. In the first six months of this new system, the number of children receiving the ACCS (child wellbeing) payment collapsed by 21 per cent. In the December 2018 quarter, the number of children receiving the payment was 13,130 compared to 16,680 12 months earlier. That is more than 3,500 at-risk and vulnerable children who just dropped out of the system. No more vital early learning and care for them. Those children didn't stop needing care overnight, but, because the government imposed new rules and paperwork on these children, they fell through the cracks. When asked in Senate estimates if the department was concerned about the drop, they admitted they weren't and also confessed they weren't even tracking if families had dropped out of the system. It was shocking and quite concerning to hear this, because this program is about preventing children going into the child protection system; it's about early prevention. So it was very disappointing.
When the Senate held an inquiry into the government's first round of legislative changes last September, stakeholders were almost unanimous in raising their ongoing, serious concerns about the administration of the additional childcare subsidy for child wellbeing. To the minister's credit, he has finally listened to these concerns. While this government often ignores evidence and dismisses stakeholders that it doesn't agree with, the minister, on this occasion, hasn't. I would like to thank him for listening and acting.
Schedule 1 of the bill makes a series of changes that will improve the ability of early learning providers to access the child wellbeing subsidy payment. Providers will be able to enrol children under the provider, rather than a parent or foster carer, for up to 13 weeks while the parent or foster carer is applying for a CRN and the childcare subsidy through Centrelink. This is a critical change as it helps providers get these vulnerable children straight into care when they enrol at a service or when they move between foster care arrangements. We don't want to see these children missing out on a single day of early learning or care. Providers will also be able to apply for the ACCS to be back paid for up to 13 weeks instead of the current 28 days. It was heroic in the extreme for the government to think that Centrelink would process any paperwork in less than 28 days, so this is a very sensible change which means providers are not being left out of pocket for Centrelink delays.
Other changes to the ACCS will allow for providers to request ACCS determinations for up to 12 months for children on long-term child protection orders and in foster care. This amendment will improve the continuity of care for children at risk of abuse or neglect and reduce red tape for providers and child protection agencies. These are sensible and overdue changes which will improve the access for vulnerable children, and of course Labor will support them. Other provisions in the bill are minor and technical amendments, which Labor will also support. But it's important to note that none of these changes do anything to expand the eligibility for early learning or increase funding to the early learning sector.
It's fair to say that the last couple of months have been pretty significant for the early learning sector. As we all know, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the childcare subsidy system was put into hibernation and replaced with the Prime Minister's so-called free child care for essential workers. Labor had called for a rescue package because something needed to be done to stop a whole lot of services from going broke as the country shut down in April. Free child care for every worker did make a good headline for the Prime Minister, and he was very much front and centre of that good news. When he said that all Australians still working were considered essential workers, families from around Australia all reasonably assumed that they would get free child care as a result and, I think, centres and service reasonably thought that they would get paid for providing that child care. But the main feature of the Prime Minister's free childcare system was that providers weren't adequately paid for the children in their care. This meant that a number of families and children were locked out of free child care and many services were driven to the brink of collapse.
My office was flooded with calls and emails from early learning services from around the country who were struggling to keep their doors open after their funding had been slashed. These services were cutting hours, cutting staff or cutting places to try and balance their books. I spoke to many family daycare educators who didn't suffer a drop in enrolments but were now expected, under the Prime Minister's plan, to work for half their pay because they couldn't access JobKeeper or because the payment went to their service and had to be distributed to many. I also heard from many families who were being denied places, including healthcare workers who were asked to come back from maternity leave early to help with the crisis and just missed out. They couldn't come back because they didn't have care. It seems that there were some Australians who were considered more essential than others. But the Prime Minister didn't outline that. He put the burden on service providers to try and work it out.
Another key feature of the government's rescue package was the exceptional circumstances fund, which was set up to cover one-third of early-learning educators not covered by JobKeeper—or so we were told. The latest data from the department shows that only 39 per cent of applications were approved.
The government boasts that 98 per cent of early-learning services were still open during the COVID crisis, but this is a very superficial KPI. Does the government know how many of this 98 per cent of services were suffering from massive financial losses? The government's own limited survey found that a quarter of services were not financially viable and were losing money every day under the government's rescue package. Does the government know how many services during this time had to cut opening hours and educators? Does the government know how many of these services had to turn away essential workers?
There is no doubt the Prime Minister's so-called free-child-care-for-some-Australians system had more holes in it than Swiss cheese. It is no wonder that the sector was seriously struggling to deliver the Prime Minister's 'free child care' commitment when it was expected to do it for less funding. Naturally the government's response was to blame the providers. It was sending strongly-worded communications to providers, threatening their funding. It has been revealed that, as part of the government's new dob-in-a-service hotline, where it encourages families to dob in their early-learning providers, there are now investigations into some of these services. What a debacle! So much for all being in it together.
The government's underfunded policy was a mess. But now this week we've had snapback—snapback to an old, confusing, expensive system just days after the Treasurer confirmed that Australia was in recession for the first time in 29 years. This is not the time to be foisting high, out-of-pocket costs for child care onto families. Australians are doing it tough. Millions have lost their jobs or had their hours cut as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown. Mortgages and rent payments have been deferred and people are surviving on JobKeeper and jobseeker.
The day after the announcement, the government announced it was allowing businesses to defer their pay-as-you-go payments because so many were struggling. Whole segments of the economy are still shut down, so nobody can pretend that things are getting back to normal. Not one economist out there is saying that in a month's time, when the old childcare subsidy system gets put back in place—which was designed in a time of high employment—things will be back to normal; no-one is suggesting that, except, it seems, the government.
We have an expensive system in the world, because the government has designed it to be so. The government has not increased the childcare subsidy at pace with increasing costs; costs in childcare fees grew by seven per cent last year. So we have a government that only increases the benchmark price by CPI, meaning that every quarter parents fall further and further behind and get greater and greater out-of-pocket costs. This has been very difficult for families when there hasn't been an economic crisis, but now, during this economic crisis, it is a problem. Of course, there is the complex and confusing activity and income test. While the government has announced, in slightly unclear terms, that the activity test is now paused for those who have reduced hours or income, the activity test is still there in some form or another and it is confusing and complex. Many families will still be wondering what their reporting obligations are, whether or not they get a break from the activity test. I've heard from many families that they want to go back to work, they want to get a job, they want to get their small business going again. But in this climate, where large parts of the economy are shut down, they're just not able to do it. They're just not able to do it or they're certainly not able to get income from it. My concern is that many, many families are not ready to go back to the high, expensive fees that they were experiencing before this pandemic.
My office has been contacted by many families, in particular women, who are pretty devastated about this announcement. They certainly felt that they would get more care and compassion from this government. In fact, the government's snapping back to their old child care system at the bottom of a recession does say something about their values and priorities. We've had the government decision that 120,000 early-childhood educators will be coming off JobKeeper, despite the Prime Minister making a big promise that he would not rip JobKeeper off them, leaving them facing months of uncertainty.
I hear the government talk about doing things better. Well, why have a one-size-fits-all approach? Can the government guarantee that, with their better way, they will not have one educator lose their job up until September? Will every single educator be guaranteed a job? They can't give that guarantee. So, now there is uncertainty for early educators, there's uncertainty if demand drops for services and there is a lot of uncertainty for families who are sitting around the kitchen table now, trying to work out whether it's even worth going back to work and whether or not they should drop a day or say no to extra shifts, because they just can't afford it.
This is very worrying and very concerning. Educators and families deserve better. I put to the government: why is it that when you have a diverse sector, like the early education and care sector, you had to just rip JobKeeper off everyone? Why not try to nuance your approach for services that didn't have JobKeeper, that couldn't access the complex exceptional circumstances payment when they were promised they could access it? If they were able to demonstrate that they could have more educators on than otherwise, why couldn't they still offer those early educators JobKeeper and perhaps take a different approach to those that needed an alternative? Instead, this government has not taken a nuanced path. In fact, they have taken a path that could well be a handbrake on the economy.
Going back to the minister's old child care system at the depths of an economic crisis, I ask the minister what modelling he has done on the impact the snapback will have on enrolment and attendance? Which children are now going to miss out as a result of this decision by the government? Ultimately, that's what we want to make sure our early education and care system is designed for—for children. So, I plead with the government to please start looking at this seriously, because if we don't get this right I know now that children will be pulled out of early education and will miss out on it and, potentially, women will struggle going back to work. On that note, while we support this bill we certainly hope the government looks at child care very seriously.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Australia Post is a vital service that regional Australians rely on, and I condemn the government for their proposed changes and the harsh impact it will have on services and local jobs in my electorate. The government's plans to change Australia Post regulations will mean cuts to mail delivery services and local jobs, and it's the regions that'll be hit the hardest. Under the government's plan, mail delivery across the New South Wales North Coast will blow out now to seven full business days—seven days! The fact is: regional communities like mine are already waiting longer for their mail than those in the cities, and these changes will push those wait times out even further. These changes will affect everyone who relies on Australia Post, but it will particularly affect the elderly in my electorate. They will be the most disadvantaged by these cuts to mail delivery services.
Many seniors are not on the internet and they rely so much on the mail for their letters and cards and their bills, and now, because of this government, they will be waiting even longer for important correspondence. The fact is: mail is often a lifeline for our seniors. And, at a time of economic downturns across regional Australia, this government is now slashing jobs and cutting services.
In the regions, we blame the National Party; they support these harsh changes. But Labor will continue to fight this government's proposed changes to Australia Post regulations. We will fight them every step of the way. Labor will fight for regional Australia, unlike the National Party.
(—) (): Learning how to manage your mental wellbeing is an important and often challenging part of growing up. Studies have shown that one in three people aged between 15 and 19 have personal concerns about mental health, so it's crucial to end the stigma associated with mental ill-health and to help people access the support and help that they need. In conjunction with the Fraser Coast Regional Council, the Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service, the Rotary clubs of Maryborough, Sunshine and Maryborough City and the Maryborough Hospital Lobby Group, I was pleased to help produce The Little Blue Bookfor schools across the Fraser Coast.
This valuable resource was inspired by the strength and resolve of John and Tricia Barounis, who, tragically, lost their beautiful son, 17-year-old Yannis, who passed away by suicide. I commend them for their dedication and initiative for driving the production of this guide that is designed for young people to let them know that help is available and where they can access support services. Like the Barounises, I am deeply committed to tackling the complex and challenging issues of youth mental ill-health. We need to end the stigma so that people aren't afraid to seek help, and we need to ensure that life-saving mental health services are within easy reach for those who need them.
The case for guaranteeing a minimum of two seats for the Northern Territory in this House is pretty simple. As in all electorates around our country, the population of the NT's seats moves around and fluctuates a bit—particularly when those opposite send our troops down to the south or cut a quarter of our Commonwealth public servants, for example. However, what makes the Territory unique is its massive size, and its unique demography which includes 30 per cent Aboriginal Territorians.
It's outrageous that, if the Prime Minister doesn't act when the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 comes over from the Senate to this House, we may have one member in this place representing 250,000 Territorians. We are simply asking for what we've got at the moment: two members in this House, amongst the 150, representing those Territorians.
Senator Mathias Cormann hasn't given us much faith, but the good people of Darwin and Palmerston know and know well, from bitter experience, that if we don't assert our rights here and if we allow the government to send things off to a committee and not support Territorians, we won't get what we rightly deserve.
With the social-distancing restrictions that have been in place due to COVID-19, I believe it is more important than ever to stay connected with our communities. Last month I hosted two tele town halls with the help of Senator Hume, the Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology, and with the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing, the member for Deakin, to discuss the impacts of COVID-19 on Chisholm and the country. There were many great questions. For example, Ms Valerie Khoa from Glen Waverley wanted to know more about JobSeeker, Mr Gareth Carr from Box Hill talked about helping regional tourism and Mr Nick Theodorou of Burwood East asked about opening up businesses to get the economy firing.
I was absolutely thrilled to have on hand two outstanding members of the coalition government with a wealth of economic and financial experience. I would like to thank both of them for their time and interest in Chisholm. Their expertise is just one of the reasons that the coalition government is and will continue to be the party that Australians can trust to bring us back to prosperity.
I rise today to congratulate the members of my community who were recognised on the Queen's Birthday honours list. Eleven local people have received recognition as part of the 2020 list to acknowledge and celebrate their contributions to our community and Australia. I know there are so many amazing local people who are worthy of recognition for what they do every day to help and support others. I am proud to see so many receiving this prestigious honour. I would like to congratulate: Bernard Basevi OAM from Malua Bay, James Doak OAM from Berry, Rae Doak OAM from Berry, Christine Dunstan OAM from Berry, Bevin Hardy OAM from North Nowra, Gregory Malavey OAM from Moruya and Bruce Murphy OAM from Bomaderry, who all received the Medal of Order of Australia—General or Civilian Division.
Congratulations to Chief Inspector John Klepczarek APM from Jamberoo who received the Australian Police Medal, and Glenn Sullivan ESM from East Lynne who received the Emergency Services Medal. And congratulations to Warrant Officer Stephen Cheeseman OAM from Bomaderry, who received the Medal of the Order of Australia Military Division; and Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Warner CSM DSM from Broughton Vale, who received the Conspicuous Service Medal.
Congratulations to our local recipients and thank you for everything you do for our community.
One of the things I am most passionate about is local jobs for local people. Advanced manufacturing will play a large role in achieving that aspiration. Since I was elected the member for Lindsay, I have been working with industry, schools, businesses and members of our community to bring manufacturing back to Western Sydney and back to Australia. One of the first steps I made as the member for Lindsay was to form the Lindsay jobs of the future forum, which is made up of these representatives. Recently, we met to discuss the barriers that are inhibiting manufacturing from returning to Western Sydney.
I established a community-led advancing manufacturing task force whose role it is to come up with practical solutions to bring manufacturing back, to advocate for better policy and to influence policy-making. A critical part in bringing manufacturing back to Western Sydney is educating our kids in the jobs of the future. With Western Sydney International Airport, Sydney Science Park and infrastructure investment in Western Sydney, there will be many opportunities for our children to live and work locally in jobs that we haven't yet thought of. We need to be stronger in backing Australian manufacturers, and I believe Western Sydney holds the key to bringing manufacturing back to Australia.
I take this opportunity to say some words of praise, respect and gratitude for the contribution June Hutchison has made to community life in Fremantle for which she received the Medal of the Order of Australia on Monday. Since moving to Freo in 1983, June has been a whole-hearted and indefatigable agent of social inclusion, social justice and progressive change. The range of her involvement in volunteering and community roles is quite incredible.
As an activist, June has been an anti-nuclear campaigner and worked in support of Community Aid Abroad and the Australian Conservation Council. A teacher and librarian, June also served as President of the School Library Association and as chair of both the Fremantle Library Advisory Committee and Fremantle Arts Centre Press. From 1986 to 1991 June was a councillor on the City of Fremantle, chairing the planning and development committee. In 1993 she co-founded the Fremantle community justice group and in 1996 organised the Fremantle forum on constitutional reform. In 1999 June received Fremantle's Citizen of the Year award.
I can tell you that at 93 June remains an active member of the Fremantle Labor branch and maintains a strong focus on issues like the fair and just treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. I cannot think of a better model of engaged and principled citizenship than June Hutchison. She has influenced and inspired the civic participation of many people in my community over a long period of time, and I'm very glad to be one of those people.
The traffic on Homebush Bay Drive has been one of Sydney's biggest congestion nightmares over the last 20 years. In fact, the intersection at Australia Avenue and Underwood Road in Homebush has been described as the worst roundabout in Australia. To see this project get the green light is a huge cause for celebration in our community. The Morrison government committed $50 million to the project last year, and that has now been matched by the New South Wales government. The project will improve road safety and traffic flow and give easier access to Sydney Olympic Park, Wentworth Point, Newington, Homebush, Rhodes and Liberty Grove. The first stage of the project is now going ahead, with $1.3 million unlocked to begin scoping works and investigations for project planning.
The infrastructure upgrade is expected to support about 210 local jobs, an important part of boosting our local economy when we need it most. This is great news for commuters who use this busy intersection, because the Homebush Bay Drive upgrade will provide better access to one of Sydney's most iconic entertainment, sporting and retail precincts, the site of the Sydney 2000 Olympics. I look forward to updating the House on this project in the months ahead.
In times of crisis, one constant source of independent, reliable and trustworthy news that Australians turn to is the ABC. This has never been more evident than this summer, during the bushfires that changed our country, or during the COVID-19 health crisis. But it is now the ABC that is in a state of crisis and desperately needs our support. The ABC has confirmed widespread job cuts to address a $41 million funding shortfall. Consistent funding cuts over the years have led to the loss of quality programming, and a 50 per cent reduction in the number of hours of original Australian drama and comedy on ABC TV—think of programs such as Redfern Now, Blue Murder, Paper Giants and Total Control. The ABC is where we tell and share our stories as a nation.
Polls and surveys show the ABC is consistently the most trusted news source for Australians, pointing to its impartiality, quality journalism and demonstrated ethics. In 2018, the same year these funding cuts were announced, a survey by the Australia Institute found that 68 per cent of respondents think the ABC is more important in an age of social media and fake news. Interestingly, this included 64 per cent of LNP voters. I call on the government to reverse its funding decisions. An independent source of media is so important and a cornerstone of our democratic society.
I was very pleased to join recently with Joy Taylor and David Masefield of Canvas Coworking and Startup Toowoomba to announce funding support under the federal government's Entrepreneurs Program for their innovative FLAIR program—Female Led Aspiring International Regional business incubator. This four-month program will support five female-led start-up businesses in our region to aspire to trade internationally and deliver goods and services which help traditional industry across Australia. This will be a hybrid delivery program, offering support in person and virtually to overcome barriers to participation.
World-class entrepreneur-in-residence Ian Mason has been engaged, and the FLAIR incubator cohort will be supported by more than 50 mentors from across the world, who will address and represent multiple industry sectors.
I've been a long term supporter of Canvas Coworking and Startup Toowoomba. They do fantastic work in supporting our region's future entrepreneurs during this critical startup phase. Toowoomba and the Darling Downs have a proud history of successful, resilient and diverse small businesses, and we all know that all small businesses were once startups. They play a critical role in our economy, especially as we recover from the economic impacts of COVID-19. I congratulate Joy, David and their team.
The Morrison government's use of COVID-19 as an excuse to restructure Australia Post, to cut services and to ultimately cut jobs will particularly impact on older Australians, many of whom still heavily rely on Australia Post for letter services. It is particularly galling that this has been done without any consultation and as the Prime Minister calls for the easing of restrictions so that people can get back to work. It is only logical that mail volumes would have fallen over recent months, and it's just as logical that those mail volumes will increase as businesses get back on their feet in the months ahead, particularly as businesses resume sending out unaddressed promotional material, which has become a large part of the Australia Post business.
It has been alleged that Australia Post are manipulating their statistics to justify the changes, which raises the question: What is the Morrison government's real objective here? Is the long-term plan to privatise Australia Post? We don't know, because the Morrison government refuses to debate the matter. We saw that in this chamber only this morning. What we do know is that, under the Morrison government, Australian postal prices have increased and continue to increase, services are being cut and one in four postie jobs will very likely be lost, all of which will further hurt the Australian economy.
According to the Grattan Institute, the Sunshine Coast has lost more jobs as a result of COVID-19 than any other region in Queensland. Unfortunately, the sectors that are the strong suit of our regional economy are also the very sectors that are most exposed to COVID-19. I'm happy today to be releasing a report on a survey I've recently undertaken with the business community, and I'm grateful to the 281 business leaders who made a contribution. Their key concern at the moment is the risk of business failure and the persistence of a recession. It should be no surprise that a top concern, especially of the tourism sector, is that the Queensland borders remain closed, without any certainty about when they might reopen. So I say very clearly to Premier Palaszczuk, who has not announced the date—
Opposition members interjecting—
Those opposite have said, 'What date is it?' They don't know, you see. So I say very clearly to Premier Palaszczuk that our mantra is not, 'Beautiful one day, closed the next.' Name the date and open the borders.
It is a fundamental tenet of our legal system that the assessment of guilt or innocence be done in public so that, in the words of former High Court Justice Gibbs we aren't concerned that 'abuses may flourish undetected'. So why is my constituent Bernard Collaery facing charges in a closed court without the protection of open justice and without public scrutiny, and why are Bernard Collaery and his legal team unable to access all the evidence against him as he defends himself, another fundamental tenet of our court system that has been denied to him? I'm also concerned that, while the current Attorney-General consented to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions taking legal action against Mr Collaery and Witness K, neither he nor the Prime Minister has adequately explained that decision. The Attorney-General should explain to the Australian people why he has taken away the rights of Bernard Collaery and why this is in a closed court.
I know that, as the court meets, Canberrans are meeting outside, protesting and calling for due process and open justice to be upheld. Like many of my constituents and others around Australia, I am deeply concerned about this case and about the broader shift towards more secrecy and less accountability that we have seen under this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. This is a government that wants to silence all dissent. Labor will continue to closely scrutinise the actions of the Morrison government to ensure that abuses of our citizens do not flourish undetected within our justice system.
Genuine local news publications are the lifeblood of my community. Community journalism provides people and organisations with a voice and cultivates the heart of communities as they share stories of success, courage and generosity. From Living Heritage in the north-west to the Monthly Chronicle in the south-east, I'm privileged to have close to 20 of these publications in Berowra. This is a reflection of the local strength of my communities throughout the electorate.
Coronavirus has brought extraordinary challenges for local publications. For some, funding sources have slowed to a trickle. The Bush Telegraph, a publication with its finger on the pulse, has had to reduce its editions from weekly to monthly. The News Corp owned Hornsby Advocate, Hills Shire Times and Northern District Times are now exclusively online. That's a shame because, at times of crisis, communities most turn to their local newspapers for important information, such as where to go for help, and to share stories of grief and joy. It's also these historic moments that future generations will seek to read about in the local newspaper archive.
During COVID-19, publications have been filled with stories of businesses adapting their services, teachers bringing cheer to students during isolation and tips on thriving in quarantine. I want to acknowledge the journalists and staff behind each of our local publications: The Bush Tele; The Dooral Roundup; Galston, Glenorie & Hills Rural Community News; Hawkesbury's Independent Magazine; Hawkesbury Gazette; the four Hello Neighbours magazines; the Hills Independent Magazine; Hills to Hawkesbury; the Monthly Chronicle; Kenthurst Community News; Living Heritage; Hornsby Advocate; Hills Shire Times; and Northern District Times.
When asked on radio this morning if he thought the jobseeker payment should return to $279 a week, the member for Braddon, who is in the chamber, told Tasmanians: 'My focus is we want everyone to have a job. That's where we put our focus.' Well, that's laudable—wanting people to have a job—but he didn't answer the question. I want people to have a job. My colleagues on this side of the House want people to have a job. It's been a cornerstone of our party for more than 100 years—getting people into secure employment with fair wages and conditions. But, as much as we want people to have a job, the cold, brutal reality of life is that not everyone will be able to have a job.
Under this Liberal government, we enter Australia's first recession in 30 years, and many of those who have joined the jobless queue, especially those in their 50s, are unlikely to ever work again. Nearly a million Australians who are relying on jobseeker today did not need it just a few short months ago. Twenty-seven thousand Tasmanians are amongst them—employed and then unemployed overnight. But the member for Braddon seems content to tell them that when the payment they're receiving today halves from $550 a week to $279 a week, well, they can just go out and get another job—comforting words when the jobs are not there, with Australia's unemployment rate expected to double from six per cent in May to 12 per cent by July under this incompetent Liberal government!
A few months ago I stood in this House to call the Queensland state government to action on several infrastructure programs that were being held up. There are two that come to mind. One is the $20 million John Peterson Bridge on the Mundubbera-Durong Road, a big project that has been wanted for many, many years. It was costed by the main roads department at $20 million in scope, and that was about 18 months ago. The costs have now blown out, thanks to the delays in the construction of this bridge, to $25 million, so it has jumped $5 million in 18 months. The other project is the $40 million Springsure-Tambo Road, yet to be started. This was announced over 12 months ago, and it's been given priority by this government, but, of course, we work on the 80-20 break-up of costs, with 80 per cent coming from this federal government and 20 per cent from the state government.
So I want to call the Queensland government to action. They are doing some announcements this week, but they are re-announcing what we've already announced. We know there's an election coming up, but I'd like the Queensland government to come forward with these projects. Remember, it's all about jobs, especially post COVID-19. (Time expired)
I am still at a loss as to why the government are refusing to support universities in this time of crisis. They seem to take it as a point of ideological pride that they've left them out in the cold. We've had government backbenchers suggest that really it is universities' own fault that part of what makes them financially successful is international students—nothing to do, of course, with the way the government has funded and regulated the sector! And they seem to suggest that the people who work at universities are not worthy of support. But these are real people with families, financial commitments, mortgages, fees and expenses they need to pay. They're academics, tutors, administration staff and the staff of the small businesses in the area who rely on the trade from the university. And many of them live in my electorate, where La Trobe University is struggling, without support, through this crisis. They've been forced to ask staff for expressions of interest for voluntary redundancies and preretirement contract programs. It didn't have to be this way. Access to the JobKeeper scheme would have provided them with $50 million to mitigate the impact of the crisis. But this government deliberately moved the goalposts to cut them out of the scheme. And they think no-one is noticing. Well, they are. I've had hundreds of people jump online to sign my petition to save jobs at La Trobe. It's time for the government to step up to support La Trobe and support higher education.
In Barker we're blessed to have a large number of volunteers and residents who do an exceptional amount for the community. This year, more than ever, we have so much to be thankful for from them as we deal with the aftermath of bushfires, drought and, obviously, the global pandemic. On Monday, eight residents in Barker were recipients of Queen's Birthday honours, and I want to thank them in this place for all they've done for their industry and for our community.
Mr James Hutchison from Kingston received an AM for significant services to amateur radio, particularly to satellite and space communications. Mr Graham Day of Bordertown received an OAM for services to the livestock industry. Mr Donald Juers of Kingston-on-Murray received an OAM for services to powerlifting and to the community. Mrs Janice McClellan from Bordertown received an OAM for services to the Bordertown community. Mrs Jillian Paterson and Mr William Paterson of Meningie both received OAMs for services to the Meningie community and for natural resource conservation. Mr Murray Sherwell AFSM of Naracoorte received an OAM for services to the Limestone Coast community. Mrs Margaret Wortley from Naracoorte received an OAM for services to that community.
I think these outstanding citizens for their service. Our community is richer and stronger for their contribution.
Today I want to wish a young girl called Tharunicaa a happy birthday as she turns three. I am very sorry that she is spending her birthday on Christmas Island. Of course, she is there with her sister and her parents and no others. There are only four people being held on the island. For no reason, this family is sitting on Christmas Island, costing the Australian taxpayers millions of dollars—tens of millions of dollars wasted on a cruel political exercise. Instead of wasting millions of dollars keeping this defenceless family on Christmas Island, maybe the government could spend that money on the people in Australia that they are leaving behind.
It says a lot about a government that they are willing to spend money locking up a family on Christmas Island but they cannot find any money to support casual workers, artists, entertainers. They cannot find any money to support those in the university sector. And, only four days after promising the JobKeeper payment until September, the minister has ripped it away from our underpaid childcare workers. This pandemic has taught us that we need to bring people with us and not leave people behind, which is exactly what this Prime Minister is doing. In my electorate there are some of the hardest-hit places—Elwood, St Kilda and Port Melbourne—full of casual workers, people in tourism and hospitality, artists. Instead of the cruel politics, the government should bring this defenceless family home. Stop wasting millions of dollars on these people and stop leaving people behind.
Four stalwarts of the Braddon electorate have been recognised in the 2020 Queen's Birthday honours for their dedicated service. Hugh Hiscutt from Howth has been awarded the Order of Australia. Veteran Rod Bramich has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia. Mr Ian Paton Sr has been posthumously awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the Wynyard community. Inspector Glen Ball, who has been serving the Tasmanian community as a police officer for over 40 years, has been awarded the Australian Police Medal. I thank each and every one of them for their selfless dedication and their service to the region. I conclude today with a quote from Mr Hiscutt: 'There is no better place in the world to live than the north-west coast of Tasmania, a community big enough to prosper yet small enough to care.'
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the minister for communications. Did the minister think about isolated, vulnerable and older Australians who rely upon postal services to stay in touch with their families and friends before he reduced postal deliveries to those who need them most?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. You know that there's a by-election on when Labor turns to the old scare campaign, and the scare campaign they're going on about this time is Australia Post and delivery times. The facts are very clear that Australia Post has seen a sharp increase in the percentage of parcels that are being delivered and a sharp decrease in the number of letters that are being delivered. That is why we have provided temporary fixed-term regulatory relief to Australia Post so that it is able to redeploy posties from the area of the business where activity is going down to the area of the business where there is growth so as to secure the employment of posties and to provide Australians with the service that they expect. During the COVID-19 pandemic, what we have seen is a dramatic increase in the number of parcels being delivered because Australians are ordering more and more using e-commerce. Australia Post is far and away the market leader in delivering parcels. To be able to meet the needs of Australians to have parcels delivered, Australia Post has come to the government and proposed this short-term regulatory relief, and that is what we've agreed to.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I hear the Leader of the Opposition say that they couldn't employ more people. Actually, they are employing more—600 more for parcels. This is really another case of a typical Labor by-election scare campaign. The facts are not substantiated by their claims. We have a Leader of the Opposition who's under pressure. He's under pressure from the member for Rankin; Chalmers plays the long game.
I'll just say to the minister that he's now straying from the question.
These are highly relevant considerations.
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
This question was about isolated, vulnerable and older Australians who rely upon their postie to deliver letters to them. He hasn't mentioned any of them. He's just playing politics. He hasn't mentioned any of them.
I will just say to the Leader of the Opposition, as he well knows, it's not incumbent on those answering the question to mention particular words from the question. The minister is in order.
We're all concerned about isolated and vulnerable Australians, such as the isolated and vulnerable Leader of the Opposition. We've got the member for Rankin. He's in his safe place, running in the Daisy Hill Conservation Park, and of course the member for Maribyrnong is also. He should be very worried when they all start running.
No, the minister will resume his seat.
An honourable member interjecting—
He is finished—too right!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House key outcomes from today's national cabinet meeting aimed at driving Australia's economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic?
I thank the member for Sturt and I also thank the Premier of South Australia, which is where the member hails from, and thank all the premiers and chief ministers for the great work they've done in participating in the national cabinet. The national cabinet has been one of the most important mechanisms through which Australia has sought to manage the very complex issues that've been before us during this COVID-19 crisis. One of the things that have made Australia stand out from so many other countries, particularly those with federal systems, is the way that Australia's federation has been working together, with all the premiers and chief ministers. That's not to say there aren't disagreements. That's not to say there's always complete uniformity. Of course there isn't; we wouldn't expect that to be the case. But I want to thank very much the commitment shown by all those premiers and chief ministers. Not all agreed, not all supported and not all were as kind to the formation of the national cabinet as the government has been, but we will remain committed to that and have enshrined the national cabinet, together with the National Federation Reform Council, as the new way forward of managing federal affairs for this country.
Today we focused on the usual agenda—that is, the economic crisis that Australia faces and continuing to manage the health crisis that Australia faces. Now we're in the phase of reopening our economy under the three-step plan that was committed to by the national cabinet some weeks ago. We are on track and we are on target to reach that third step of that plan. States like Western Australia and the Northern Territory are already there in step 3, South Australia also is moving into that territory, New South Wales, even Victoria. Queensland: I welcome the opening of the borders next month. In Queensland they've torn down that wall, and I'm very pleased that they have. I'm very pleased that South Australia is also responding and nominating the date by which those borders will come down. We look forward to other states following suit, and I thank them for the good faith way they engaged on these issues today.
Importantly, with opening up and removing more restrictions, particularly in July when it comes to indoor venues, one of the most difficult issues that we have dealt with has been funerals and attendance at funerals. Step 3 previously put a limit of 100 on the attendance at funerals in most parts of the country. Today, it's only as many as 50. But in step 3 that limit will go, and the number of people who can attend a funeral indoors will only be limited by the four-square-metre rule. Outdoors, they'll be able to have many more, provided there is appropriate seating. I know that will be welcomed by so many Australians. This has been the biggest of so many hardships that Australians have had to confront in not being able to say goodbye to their loved ones. There have been many others. But that one is an important change. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Forty-one homes were lost in my electorate during last summer's bushfires. People have told me that they want to rebuild but it's unlikely they'll be able to sign a contract by the end of the year. How will the Prime Minister ensure that bushfire victims like these ones can access the HomeBuilder scheme?
I thank the member for her question, and I commend her for the work that she's done within in her community, as I do all those members who have been in bushfire affected areas for the work they've done in engaging communities and raising issues that need to be addressed. The commitment that we made to the states and territories was to jointly fund the demolition work that was being done across all of those buildings that were damaged and destroyed during the course of the bushfires. The advice I have from the state government in New South Wales is that demolition work will be completed next month but is already progressing through so many parts of the state. That is the project which is managed, as you know, by the state government. They're running the contractors, and they're doing it at a cracking pace. I commend them for doing that and to keep pushing forward.
The HomeBuilder program, as introduced by the Minister for Housing and by the Treasurer, enables grants of $25,000 for those who are eligible under the income test rules to be made to support the construction of new homes. One of the key issues I've been discussing with the state and territory premiers has been how we can escalate and how we can more rapidly ensure that approvals are given, not just for these types of cases but more generally. The purpose of the $25,000 principally was to bring forward projects that were already approved but people weren't going to proceed with, so we could get those projects happening again. People in affected areas are eligible for these grants, subject of course to the income restrictions that are placed on them. I'll be working closely with the states and territories to ensure that they can accelerate the rate of home approvals, not just in these areas but everywhere, because this is critical to job creation. It's absolutely urgent for those who are impacted by the bushfires—certainly, definitely. But it is also critically important for those whose jobs depend on getting these projects started. There is no greater focus this government has ever had than on job creation in the wake of the COVID crisis and, indeed, in the wake of the bushfire crisis—rebuilding communities, rebuilding homes, rebuilding jobs and rebuilding our economy.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please update the House on the value and importance of medical advice in supporting and informing the decisions of the national cabinet?
I want to thank the member for Leichhardt for his work in standing up for the health of Australians in Far North Queensland and, in particular, in advocating for the health of Indigenous Australians. On the basis of medical advice, which has been so fundamental to Australia's response, today we have lifted the restrictions with regard to the rings of containment or biosecurity zones for remote Indigenous communities in Queensland—in his own area. This follows the same decisions, on the basis of medical advice, in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. These zones were put in place in order to save and protect some of our most vulnerable Australians. The extraordinary thing that has occurred is that, at the outset of the arc of the virus, our fear was that we would see widespread disease and loss of life in First Nations communities, in Indigenous Australians, as, sadly, we've seen in many other jurisdictions overseas.
The best advice I have as of today is that, right across Australia's remote Indigenous communities, there has not been a single confirmed coronavirus case. That has meant that lives have been saved, livelihoods protected, and futures and cultures put in place and given primacy off the back of that medical advice. That is one of our great national achievements. People on all sides have contributed to that. But the Chief Medical Officer, the deputy chief medical officers, and the state and territory chief health officers helped build this policy of protection. They helped provide the advice to the national cabinet, and we put it in place under the biosecurity emergency powers. Now, as it's deemed safe, we've had the privilege of removing those restrictions and allowing these communities to return to normality.
As we've gone through this process, whether it's been the listing of coronavirus as a disease of human pandemic potential or the difficult decision to close the borders with China on 1 February—which was so opposed by the WHO, and by China itself, but a decision which saved lives—all of these things have mattered. Right now, the medical advice though is absolutely clear: the single biggest risk we face is from uncontrolled mass gatherings. No matter what the nobility of the cause, no matter what the purpose, there is no immunity for Australians who are in close proximity in an uncontrolled situation. That advice was set out by the medical expert panel yesterday and repeated by the Chief Medical Officer today. These gatherings could risk life, and I urge all Australians to help protect lives and to keep their distance and to make their voices known in other safer ways. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's comments about his HomeBuilder scheme:
If you've been putting off that renovation or new build, the extra $25,000 we're putting on the table … means now's the time to get started.
How many Australians who've been putting off renovating their kitchens or bathrooms will get a cent from this scheme?
The scheme provides for 27,000 new projects, which is 7,000 renovations/new builds—substantial renovations, which are new builds—and 20,000 new home constructions. It was never the intention of this program to provide subsidy support for small-scale renovations. That was not the purpose. I'll tell you why we weren't going to do that. We weren't going to do that, because of the risk of integrity to the program and a repeat of the insulation batts farce that occurred under the Labor Party, where people were going around, knocking on doors and basically pulling in pink batts and saying they were going to put them in your roof, and pocketing the difference. It was a joke. It was a complete failure—
The member for Isaacs! The member for Deakin!
and four people died in relation to that program. They died as a result of that program, as established in a royal commission, I note, through those evidentiary—
The Prime Minister will pause for a second.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Okay, now that the member for Isaacs has finished, he can leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
The member for Mitchell is warned. The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister.
On this program, we were not going to give rise to a situation where people passing themselves off as kitchen renovators were going to go and knock on the doors of pensioners, rip out their sinks and their dishwashers and then seek to claim some government subsidy. That's not the nature of this program. This isn't for do-it-yourself home renovations. This is about approved work of significant scale by certified builders to enable people to bring forward projects that they have put off and now can proceed with.
I note the derision that is applied by those opposite to someone who might be proceeding with a substantial renovation, a new build of their home, of some $150,000. The average loan taken out for a renovation is $164,000. I can tell you that's the case because there are families around this country who cannot afford to go and build a new home. Their families are expanding and their children are growing up; they can't afford to sell their house and go and buy a new piece of land and engage in a new construction. So, what do they do? They borrow money to expand their existing home and renovate substantially their existing home because they can't afford to build a $300,000 or $350,000 new home.
The opposition's derision of this initiative smacks of two things: (1) they never learnt the mistakes of their failed schemes when they were in government; and (2) they don't know what's going on in the suburban families of this country.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, there are 140,000 fewer apprentices than there were in 2013, and no wonder, when $3 billion has been cut from VET funding in that period. This puts standards and safety at risk, reduces job opportunities and increases labour shortages. TAFEs in particular are in dire straits. For example, a second-year trade apprentice at TasTAFE has not been offered any online learning for a core subject during the pandemic and has had to make do with a single 30-minute phone call with his teacher. Prime Minister, what are you going to do about this? When will the government give vocational training the priority this country needs now more than ever?
I thank the member for his question, and I agree with his suggestion of the need to ensure this is a national priority, and that is why I have done exactly that—several weeks ago, when I stood up at the National Press Club and when we established the National Federation Reform Council. Today, in fact, at the meeting of national cabinet, we established skills as one of six key areas that need to have greater cooperation and support from states, territories and the Commonwealth government to ensure that we are getting people rightly trained, rightly skilled, to get into the jobs that are going to build businesses into the future.
This is an area that has had a very vexed history. The Commonwealth, by law, is required each year to sign out a cheque to the states and territories to the value of some $1½ billion. It's guaranteed and it's indexed. So we are required by law to continue to provide that funding. There is nothing in that arrangement, which was set in place by the previous government, that enabled any of that funding to be directed towards TAFE or private training or to be tagged to any particular outcome or training any particular group of people or matching it against any identified skills needs. As a result, for TAFEs in particular, their funding source, their level of funding, is totally determined by state governments. That's how the system works. There are varying results.
I learnt today from the New South Wales Premier that, through the initiative the New South Wales government has put through their TAFE to get people training during the COVID crisis, they've got 100,000 people who've completed those courses. That's fantastic. That's a state government that's getting on with that job, and I would commend those sorts of initiatives, and all premiers listened to what the Premier in New South Wales said today. The partnership we have on skills has got to be better—that's what I'm saying. What we are doing at the moment is putting over $1.5 billion every year, with no accountability for outcomes. That is not good enough, and that agreement needs to change. It has to respond to identified skills needs and changes that need to be made in the skills and training system. Those are exactly the types of reforms that my government is seeking to pursue, even as we speak.
My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Will the minister outline how the Morrison government has been supporting Indigenous Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic and how the new national agreement on Closing the Gap will change the way we work with Indigenous Australians?
I thank the member for Forde for his ongoing interest in matters to do with our people, Indigenous Australians. What COVID has shown very successfully—and the work around the partnership—is that by working in joint arrangements we've achieved the outcomes that we were seeking in COVID. We had the bureaucracy in place to protect people at the community level by engaging leaders and engaging the communities. In those discussions we achieved incredible outcomes. The Closing the Gap partnership has meant that leaders in that process have sat at the cabinet table with the Prime Minister—unheard of. They have also sat with our agencies and with state and territory governments and have negotiated every page of the partnership plan, looking at solutions and the way in which we will collectively close the gap in all of those critical areas that will impact on the quality of life. The voice is another that we are allowing Indigenous Australians to shape—not governments, not bureaucracies.
So, as a government we are working with Indigenous Australians to find the solutions that will improve the quality of their lives across so many facets of what's occurring. More importantly, when we were discussing some matters around the cabinet table the Prime Minister made it very clear that the Minister for Indigenous Australians wasn't the only minister responsible, that all of us around the cabinet table had to engage with Indigenous Australians in a very different way. Member for Solomon, the partnerships we have with Indigenous Australians mean that they own both the solutions and the way in which we will implement, because for too long we have done things to Indigenous Australians. It doesn't matter what the program is. We have defined it and said that you will operate within this parameter.
On cultural matters, negotiations have occurred with the Minister for the Environment on some of the key directions we're thinking about and the way in which we can protect our cultural heritage. That work is continuing, with a genuine desire to have the Indigenous leadership involved in telling us what is needed. That will change the way in which we will achieve outcomes in this nation that we've not achieved thus far. When any of us negotiates with local or state governments, we negotiate every point thoroughly. We're now doing that with Indigenous Australians. Both the partnership agreement and the COVID experience have shown us that when you give people the opportunity to determine their own direction, they will take that responsibility, stand up, and meet the challenge.
My question is to the Minister for Housing. In question time on Tuesday, when the minister quoted the publication Domain, had he also read these Domain stories: 'HomeBuilder might be the most-complex least-equitable construction jobs program ever devised', and 'HomeBuilder: eight ways that $688 million could be better spent on housing to stimulate the economy'? If this is what a real estate publication thinks of this scheme, isn't it time to rename it 'home blunder'?
The shadow minister wants to bring out quotes. Well, I've got a lot of quotes for the shadow minister. On the day that the shadow minister and shadow Treasurer came out to criticise this policy, they said that the Master Builders Association had criticised the policy. So, they were relying on the Master Builders Association, which was a surprise to the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and I because the head of the Master Builders Association was with us when we announced this policy, and said the following:
Master Builders Australia believes that the Federal Government’s announcement of the HomeBuilder scheme today will be a massive relief to the 1000s of home builders and tradies around the country.
Are you listening, Shadow Minister?
HomeBuilder will be a lifeline for an industry facing a valley of death in the coming months. It will mean more new homes, more small businesses and jobs are protected and provide a stronger bridge to economic recovery for our country.
It goes on and on. I'll continue if we've got quotes. We've got a home builder, Jesse Zielke, from Bundaberg, who said that on the first Saturday after the HomeBuilder was announced, the response they had for their house and land packages meant he said the following:
We're been gearing up. I've employed three people this week in various roles.
I've been in contact with subcontractors, suppliers to make sure that we could handle it.
It's certainly going to be a boost locally—
to jobs and the industry. It goes on and on. The Domain article that the shadow minister referred to referred to the fact that house and land packages throughout this country increased last Saturday by up to 70 per cent.
What does new home sales mean? It means what I said earlier this week, that the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the residential construction industry are protected. I know the shadow minister probably hasn't come across a tradie—he's been here a bit too long in the halls of Canberra—but hundreds of thousands of tradies such as carpenters on building sites, bricklayers, plumbers and in regional Australia the timber mill workers who make the frames and trusses, the manufacturers who make the bricks and the glass and the tiles will be protected. We estimate there will be 20,000 new homes and 7,000 substantial rebuilds. We have seen evidence that those 20,000 new homes is overwhelmingly supporting new home buyers. So the Labor Party has opposed the first Home Super Saver Scheme, the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and now HomeBuilder. The coalition is the party of home ownership in this country and residential construction jobs.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor is now warned. I've asked her to stop interjecting on numbers of occasions this week.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the McCormack-Morrison government JobMaker plan is supporting and creating jobs in the construction industry as part of the recovery from COVID-19.
I call the Deputy Prime Minister and point out that's the only Deputy Prime Minister he can ask a question of in this place.
Thanks for pointing that out, Mr Speaker! Good question; good member. He knows all about jobs, jobs, jobs; we all on this side know about jobs, jobs, jobs, I'm going to outline three projects in the member for New England's electorate which are all about JobMaker, all about job creation, all about the $100 billion 10-year pipeline of investment that we are doing in New England and right across this wide brown land.
85,000 jobs are being created by our vision, our plan, our blueprint for infrastructure for the rollout of jobs, jobs, jobs. There is the Bolivia Hill realignment on the New England Highway, 38 kilometres south of Tenterfield. There he was the other day, the member for New England, looking at what could only be described as a breathtaking piece of infrastructure. It's a prime example of government investment directly creating jobs. This project includes 2.1 kilometres of new road and a 320-metre long cantilever bridge. So far, piers 1 and 2, as well as eight of the 60 segments, have been completed. We have partnered with the New South Wales government to get this job done—an $80 million project. Tenterfield mayor Peter Petty said, 'The families who have lost loved ones on this stretch of road have been fighting hard for this. It was well known as a black spot.' The member for New England has been fighting hard for this, too. We are delivering. This project alone is supporting more than 750 direct and indirect jobs through the construction phase, and the flow on benefits are just enormous.
Then we've got Dungowan. The member for New England and I know how important this is. There we were on 13 October last year: the Prime Minister was there; the Deputy Premier was there—friends, all. We are getting on with this project, for this is going to provide water security for those on the Peel River. It's going to provide water security to enable agriculture, livestock, fodder, dairy, horticulture—all those sorts of things—and I know how important that is for the people in the member for New England's electorate. First built in 1958, the Dungowan dam that's there at the moment has been supporting farmers along the Peel, but this new structure, at three times the size, is going to create so many jobs and so much investment and so many opportunities.
Of course we're also getting an upgrade for the pioneer Calala Cottage hut. Now, it's not a big project in the scheme of things, but so important. It's so important for our nation's heritage. It's so important to remember the pioneers of New England—those hard workers who built New England by the sweat of their own brows.
These are good investments. These are creating jobs. This is the sort of vision that we on this side of the House are producing, are investing in and are making sure that we deliver.
My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday, the Treasurer used the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility as evidence that this government was supporting the community housing sector. Given Treasury has revealed, a short time ago, that $999,800,000 of this still has not been spent, isn't this just another example that the government is leaving Australians behind?
It's available now!
The Treasurer has the call. The member for Deakin, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing, will cease interjecting. The Treasurer has the call.
NHFIC, as I said to the House yesterday, is a billion-dollar program that was established by the former Treasurer, now Prime Minister, which is out there providing support on top of our other social housing initiatives which I announced yesterday, including in the Hobart City Deal, providing support for those in the community who need that community housing.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government's responsible economic management and recovery plan will strengthen Australia's economy and get Australians back into work in the wake of the coronavirus?
I thank the member for Bass for her question and acknowledge that before coming to this place she was a farmer and a mayor of George Town, and she is making a great contribution on behalf of her constituents in this place. The member for Bass, like members on this side of the House, know that we have entered into this economic crisis from a position of economic strength. We delivered the first current account surplus in 40 years, we saw welfare dependency at its lowest level in 30 years, we delivered the biggest tax cuts this country has seen in more than 20 years, and the budget was in balance for the first time in 11 years.
That economic strength allowed us, in the words of the OECD just earlier this week, to provide massive macroeconomic support to the Australian people through the COVID crisis—support through the cash flow boost, the extension and the expansion of the instant asset write-off, the effective doubling of the safety net with the jobseeker coronavirus supplement, and of course the JobKeeper program. The JobKeeper program is providing employers around the country and employees with support through this crisis—like Flinders Island Aviation, where Peter has been able to keep his four staff on the JobKeeper program and to continue to provide essential passenger and also freight logistics support to those isolated communities. In the words of Peter, at this particular business, JobKeeper has not only enabled him to keep his staff on but will enable his business to bounce back after the restrictions are lifted.
The strength of our support through this crisis has seen Australia perform very well, not just on the health front but also on the economic front, compared to many other nations, and, as the OECD yesterday said, the Australian economy is expected to contract by five per cent this calendar year and to strengthen by four per cent next calendar year. That compares to the United States, which is expected to contract by 7.3 per cent this year; or New Zealand, at 8.9 per cent; or indeed the United Kingdom, at 11.5 per cent.
The OECD also pointed out the risk of a second wave of cases. On their numbers, if we have a second wave of cases this could hurt the Australian economy and cost the Australian economy $80 billion this year and next. That's why the Australian people have to follow the health advice. That's why we have to be vigilant. That's why we have to be patient and considerate of our fellow Australians, to ensure that we don't throw away the gains that have been hard fought and that Australians have made great sacrifices for, to ensure that we flatten the curve.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with The Australian economics editor Adam Creighton, who says that the government's response to COVID-19 is an act of hysteria because the virus has only led to the deaths of 'quite unwell elderly people'. If not, why is the minister for energy co-hosting a boardroom dinner with Mr Creighton to raise money for the Liberal Party's Eden-Monaro campaign?
The Leader of the House?
Point of order: that's a question about fundraising, which is clearly a political party matter.
There were two questions.
Honourable members interjecting—
We're not going to have a ballot on the ruling; I'm just going to make the ruling, okay? There were certainly two questions. The second one, I think, struggles to be in order. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
The purpose of the question is to ask whether or not the Prime Minister agrees with the comments that were quoted in the question. The second part of the question is clearly framed at the beginning with 'If not'—so, if the Prime Minister does disagree, why are these sorts of things happening with one of his own ministers?
Mr Robert interjecting—
The Minister for Government Services will cease interjecting.
Both parts of it go to the same issue as to the extent to which the government disagrees.
The Prime Minister isn't responsible for actions ministers take on party activities, so it's really irrelevant whether he agrees or disagrees. But the first part of the question is in order.
I don't agree with those comments. What we have done over these many months we have been combating the COVID-19 global pandemic is been conscious right from the start of the need to address both the health challenge and the economic challenge. Now, there are extreme views in this debate. There are more extreme views which say that there is nothing going on here, and there are others who say that more extreme action should be taken in terms of measures. It's a free country, and people can express whatever views they wish on these matters. I'm not seeking to express any judgement against the individual that has been referred to in the question in any way, shape or form. I just happen to have a different point of view—a point of view that has been informed by the government's actions, which shows that we took early, strong and important actions that have both protected lives and protected livelihoods.
Australia stands out around the world as being the leader both on the economic response, as is demonstrated by the OECD figures, and the health response, which has been demonstrated by the much lower death rate in Australia; it's 100 times more in overseas countries. Had we not taken the decision to take action on health, then we would not be in the position today to address the economic opportunities as we come out of this crisis. We are well ahead of where we'd hoped to be. There are different experiences in different countries. The Treasurer just made mention of New Zealand; they went to a full lockdown, and their expected position on their economy is that it will be down 8.9 per cent this year. We didn't go to that extreme, and we're looking at a five per cent reduction. Every country will make its choices. We've made the right choices.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government is supporting job creation infrastructure that will secure the affordable and reliable energy that Australians rely on while at the same time lowering reductions?
I thank the member for her question. As a former social worker, she knows how important affordable energy is for the most vulnerable in our community. She also knows we're investing in the technology and the energy infrastructure which will bring down electricity prices and ensure we keep the lights on while we're reducing our emissions.
Just recently we launched our Technology investment roadmap discussion paper. That focuses on technology, not taxes; reducing the cost of energy, not raising it. It's all about making sure that we have more jobs and more investment as we come out of the COVID crisis. We've also recently announced the first round of the microgrid program. There was a program in the member's electorate: $1.4 million for Tarnagulla and Donald in her electorate for a microgrid, which will reduce the cost of energy in remote communities like in the Mallee, using the very best technology available.
This focus on investment in critical infrastructure using the best technology available applies also to our Snowy 2.0 project. There was $1.38 billion invested by the federal government, and the people of the Snowy Mountains know what benefits this will bring. Those benefits aren't just about bringing down electricity prices and keeping the lights on. They're also about creating jobs in the Snowy Mountains region. We've already seen $35 million of direct expenditure in the Snowy Mountains region as a result of Snowy 2.0. We know there are already 500 people involved in the construction project. By the end of this year, it will be 850. At its peak, 2,000 jobs will be created from Snowy 2.0 in the Snowy region. This will be a jobs boom for the Snowy region.
Local businesses are also involved—100 businesses. James from Allspec & Partners in Tumut is providing surveying services and machinery hire for Snowy 2.0. We know that Monaro Milk & Juice is growing their business on the back of providing food and drinks up to the Snowy worksites. Of course, Matt at The Coffee Pedaler on beautiful Wynyard Street in Tumut is providing coffee, snacks and lunch up at Lobs Hole, one of the main worksites at Snowy 2.0. Our focus is on technology, not taxes; jobs and investment; a stronger economy as we come out of the COVID crisis.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has received a recommendation from the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal that Tasmania's Teddy Sheean be awarded a Victoria Cross for, 'The most conspicuous gallantry and a pre-eminent act of valour in the presence of the enemy.' Why does the Prime Minister need another review to tell him that Teddy's sacrifice should be honoured with the Victoria Cross?
I thank the member for his question. There is absolutely no doubt that Teddy Sheean was an extraordinary Australian who did extraordinary things at a time that none of us in this place can possibly imagine, and the issues that were confronted by service men and women at the time is nothing we can imagine—their commanders and those who were there at that time and made judgements on these issues. When one goes back and looks at these matters again, one must be very careful when they're putting themselves in the place of others who were there at the time. The four members of the tribunal, not all 11—it was a unanimous decision. Not 11, just four—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
It was just four. I'd just point that out to the Leader of the Opposition, as he represented that all 11 members of the tribunal made that decision. That is, in fact, not the case. There were four.
Equally, when the government receives the recommendation from the tribunal, the government then needs to consider that recommendation in forming a view and, indeed, the minister and the Prime Minister needs to form a view. So you take advice from all of the agencies that would have a relevant view on this, as I have done. I table the letter from the Chief of the Defence Force, General Campbell, for the purposes of this question and for the information of the House.
I can assure you, as Prime Minister and Chair of the National Security Committee of Cabinet, that I do not consider the advice of the Chief of Defence Force lightly. I consider it very carefully. And it's not just the current Chief of Defence Force that I've consulted on this matter; I've consulted many others who have served in that capacity in recent times. So I'm not going to consider lightly the advice that comes from the person who commands every single man and woman who serves in our defence forces.
The issue that is raised in relation to this matter is whether compelling new evidence has been presented and is available to me to take a decision that would enable me to make a recommendation to Her Majesty. That matter, on my advice, is in dispute and so I have sought advice from the former defence minister, the former Solicitor-General, the former Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and one of the most renowned military historians in this country in order to consider that precise question. If that advice comes back and says that that very high bar has been passed then that is helpful advice. And I can assure you, because I consulted the Chief of Defence Force on this matter— (Time expired)
The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to table a document?
Yes, I seek leave to table the unanimous report of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, 'Barnett and the Department of Defence re: Sheean', of 23 July 2019.
Is leave granted? The Leader of the House.
Leave is not granted. It's a public document.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is keeping the wheels of our defence industry turning to support our economic recovery as we come out the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank the member for Herbert for his question. I want to thank him for his service to the nation and also acknowledge his passion for Australian defence industry, especially up in his neck of the woods, in Townsville. During the COVID-19 period, defence industry has not missed a beat. From the beginning of the crisis, we were determined that the show would go on. Indeed, that's what our government has been very focused on—making sure that we keep the wheels of defence industry turning—and that is exactly what we have done, with a particular focus on ensuring that small business in defence industry is not only surviving but also thriving. I have no doubt that the steps we've taken over the last three months have ensured that we've saved thousands of Australian jobs.
Together with the Department of Defence and CASG, we've done everything we can over the last three months to get those projects out the door to ensure that the men and women in service get the capability that they deserve. One such project, which I announced with the member for Herbert, was a $40 million project at the RAAF base in Townsville. The exciting element of this project is that 90 per cent of the work will go to local regional companies, creating some 400 local jobs. It's such a great example of the capability of regional Australia. Another good example of regional capability is Pentarch Industrial, which is based in Wangaratta. We recently announced a $15 million contract with them, for four years, for the supply of defence equipment. It's another good example of the capability of regional Australia and of supporting those regional jobs. It really is a good regional-Australia story.
Defence has continued to fast-track payments to defence industry. We've paid some 110,000 invoices since March—$9 billion in invoices has been paid, $7 billion of which has been paid early. As you can see, we've done everything we can to ensure that, when we get to the end of this crisis, defence industry is not weaker but, indeed, much stronger. This cash flow has been very welcomed by the big end of town and major contractors but, more importantly, those funds have flowed down to the small end of town. As I say, I have no doubt we've saved thousands of those jobs, particularly with those small businesses.
Since I last rose and spoke here, we've continued to speak on a weekly basis with all the industry CEOs, industry groups, defence advocates to ensure we know what their issues are and, one by one, we have been able to solve those problems. The feedback we're receiving from industry is incredibly powerful and very positive. They know that we've got their back and they understand that, so together by more communication, more collaboration, we're ensuring that we have a very strong defence industry and very, very strong defence manufacturing base here in Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his election promise that the government would develop a real time dairy payment system to help our farmers get paid faster for their produce. Why has the Prime Minister broken his election promise and left dairy farmers behind?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The dairy industry is going through a transition, and we have lived up to a number of the suite of measures that we have put in place, firstly, around the dairy code of conduct. The first initial prices were displayed by processors on 1 June, and we will continue to work with the ACCC around refining that. That was one of the key planks of our election promises, along with a market platform and a number of other measures that we've asked the Australian Dairy Federation to support. We are working with them around expediting those because when I became agriculture minister again there was a number of measures that we needed to ensure complemented the dairy code of conduct. We have said that we want to work with all parts of the dairy industry as well as the processing sector and supermarkets. We have done that in a constructive way and we'll continue to do that.
I know those opposite wanted to have another ACCC inquiry into dairy. They don't need to because it only cost the Australian taxpayer $2 million. But it seems they now want to take the advice on the dairy industry from Pauline Hanson and One Nation. They want a reregulated industry. That is frightening. That would be a reckless act that would destroy agriculture, not just the dairy industry. Those great reformers—Paul Keating and co—will be sitting in their chairs today watching question time— (Time expired)
I ask the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations if he will update the House on how the Morrison government is working with businesses, employer groups and unions to develop reform to create jobs which are critical to driving the Australian economy out of the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank the member for his question. The member has seen many events in his time in this House but I'm sure that the event that we now face is extraordinary. He knows that. The task that we will have of regrowing hundreds of thousands of jobs will occupy us and will be the great achievement, if we can manage it, of all of our professional lives and the life of this parliament. There were 600,000 jobs lost in a matter of weeks, there are 1.6 million people now relying on JobSeeker, and JobKeeper is supporting millions more, including those working fewer hours.
As enormous as that task presently is, it could have been so much more challenging had it not been for the stabilising effects of the forward employment that is guaranteed by mega projects, particularly in oil, gas and mining. Where those projects have been successfully constructed or construction has successfully commenced, they have the effect of baking tens of thousands of jobs into the long-run economy and that has this stabilising effect, even in crises like the one that we have just seen. The sheer scale of the jobs growth that these projects can provide is completely awesome. Chevron Australia's Wheatstone natural gas project in WA will create 30,000 direct and indirect jobs out to 2040 and add $180 billion to GDP. Likewise, Woodside's Burrup Hub natural gas project in WA is estimated to support the creation of approximately 4,000 full-time jobs a year over the life of the project, which is 40 years.
These projects are utterly critical to stabilising the effects we've experienced and utterly critical to further job growth, because they bake these jobs into the economy. One of the huge efforts that we must make in growing out of this crisis is asking and answering these questions: How do we attract more of these projects to Australia in the coming years? How do we get them into Australia? How do we get them through banking feasibility stage? And how do we get construction locked in and commenced? It is a very, very competitive market for these projects. If there is any uncertainty in governance structures, contracts, policy, construction costs, then Australia can miss out.
All of the major investors and the major players in these projects say one thing consistently to both sides of this parliament, and that is that one simple improvement to the Fair Work Act could create enormous increases in certainty and very significantly increase Australia's prospects of attracting this type of investment, and that is having enterprise agreements for the life of the project, not limited to four years, when some of these projects go eight, 10, 12 years in construction. All of these major, experienced contributors in this field say that this simple thing can help drive Australia out of the challenge that we now find ourselves in, and that is the fifth working group that we will be working on. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister look at extending the JobKeeper wage subsidy beyond September, as suggested by the Reserve Bank governor?
I thank the member for Rankin for his question. I too enjoyed that profile piece in The Weekend Australian on his leadership credentials, but maybe not as much as the Leader of the Opposition!
The reality is, as the honourable member knows, the Reserve Bank governor said that it is actually too early to tell what the state of the economy will be in a number of months, but what he did say is that the economic support that the government has been providing has been very, very substantial and making a real difference in helping to keep people connected to their employer and staying in a job. We've announced that we will be doing a review over the course of this month, and the outcomes of that review into the JobKeeper program and the assembly of the data will inform decisions that the government will take about the future of that program, and any announcements around the future of that program will be made on 23 July, when the finance minister and I provide an economic and fiscal update.
The JobKeeper program has been saving lives and protecting livelihoods. It is helping millions of employees and hundreds of thousands of businesses right across the country. But what I do know is that, at a time of need, because the economy was in a position of economic strength, because we had balanced the budget, because we had provided substantial tax cuts and got people off welfare into work, we were in a position to support the Australian economy with some $260 billion, or over 13 per cent of GDP, which is massive macroeconomic support, in the words of the OECD, and has seen Australia perform remarkably well not just on the health front but on the economic front as well.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government's HomeBuilder program will create jobs and provide a boost to the economy as we come out the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank the member for Longman for his question. He is a champion for all of the people in his electorate who are employed in the residential construction industry and is a great supporter of the HomeBuilder program. The HomeBuilder program, I might say, for the member for Longman, has, as I said earlier today, seen huge interest around this country. We have seen sales of house and land packages increase by up to 70 per cent. New homes mean more jobs and protecting jobs in the residential construction industry. In fact, the HomeBuilder website, through Treasury, has seen 250,000 hits in just the last week.
It will please the member for Longman, and indeed all of the members on this side of the House, to know that the highest amount of interest has come from Queensland. Many Queenslanders are seeking to utilise this opportunity. If you receive the $25,000 HomeBuilder grant as a first home buyer in Queensland, you can add the state government's $15,000 grant on top of that, meaning that first home buyers in the member for Longman's electorate will receive $40,000 in assistance to purchase their new homes.
Given the shadow minister wants to rely on quotes, there are a number of typical case studies that highlight this point. We have Tom Petersen and Kim Backman—and this goes to the Prime Minister's point earlier. They have said:
We've been talking about it for a little while, just trying to scrape together enough cash for a deposit … But that's been made a little bit easier now.
They said:
We figured we'll get a new build if we can, and with all the incentives around, that's made it possible
So, by providing the HomeBuilder grant of $25,000, the biggest single grant of its kind by a federal government, we will see first home buyers getting into the market. We will see first home buyers purchasing the typical house and land package or apartment. We will see people undertaking substantial rebuilds—a knockdown and a rebuild. The Treasurer has said we expect to see 7,000 of those. That will support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the residential construction industry.
To highlight my point about how much interest the HomeBuilder scheme has created for many, many buyers in the market, I note that Julian Coppini from the Oliver Hume group told Domain the following:
The initial response to the announcement of HomeBuilder has been extremely positive … We are seeing a combination of previous buyers who had delayed their purchase as a result of the uncertainty around COVID-19 coming back to market, combined with buyers who are in the market purely to take advantage of the HomeBuilder grant and other incentives.
The Western Australian Labor government have also backed in HomeBuilder with a $20,000 grant. The Tasmanian government have backed in HomeBuilder with a $20,000 grant. This will support people in the member for Longman's electorate and around the country. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports today that coalition MPs, including the member for Leichhardt, want JobKeeper extended beyond September but the Prime Minister is refusing to rule out kicking workers in other industries off JobKeeper before September. Why can't the Prime Minister be clear? Which Australians will he leave behind?
From the very outset of this crisis, the government has put in place the most comprehensive and the largest set of income support and economic lifeline measures that this country has ever seen. The one we started with was jobseeker, because jobseeker, the unemployment benefit, is the safety net that sits right under all Australians if they find themselves out of work. That's what we did first.
The second substantive measure that we put in place for income support was JobKeeper. JobKeeper was put in to ensure that Australians could find themselves continuing to be on the books of employers and doing some work in some cases, and they would be there in that arrangement for six months. That has bought our economy critical time. If businesses had been put in a position where they had to make decisions back in March and April about whether those employees could stay in those businesses, we would have seen millions more find themselves on their way to seeking support through the unemployment system. That decision bought those businesses time. It bought the Australian economy time. When other countries were only going for three months, we took the decision to go for six months, and that provided some certainty and confidence. Since that time, we have seen consumer confidence restored under the ANZ index and 70 per cent restored by business since the COVID crisis hit.
Now we are going through the same thoughtful, meticulous process of considering the data and looking forward and reviewing the program to make the right set of decisions about the right combination of income supports and fiscal supports to the economy that would be in place after the end of September. This is how our government makes decisions. We do things carefully, considering the advice and looking at the economic environment, and ensure we make those decisions at the right time. JobKeeper is there until the end of September. That's why we put it in place. It will remain in place until the end of September, and it will continue to provide that confidence. At the same time, the Treasurer and I and the members of the cabinet will work together with the members of the government to ensure that we get the right balance and mix of fiscal policies, because it's the fiscal policies, given the absence of monetary ammunition that's in the system, that will be so important. But we want, above all things, to get Australians back into jobs. Australians don't want to be on JobKeeper or jobseeker; they want to be in jobs. We hear from the opposition all the time how they would seek to keep people back and not allow them to go forward. The policies we will put in place and continue to put in place will be about them not only getting the support they need when they need it but also getting them in the jobs they need.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on measures the Morrison-McCormack government is taking to support local communities with practical health reforms, including the new pharmacy agreements, through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond?
I'd like to thank the member for Nicholls for his question and recognise that he is a very fierce and strong advocate for health delivery in his electorate. The regions of Australia have come through and are dealing with the COVID-19 crisis very well. Despite a couple of hotspots, which were handled very well by the federal government and state authorities, regional Australia has had a very low level of infection and remained remarkably unscathed through this time. This has been achieved by the quick rollout of telehealth services; more implementation of money for retrieval for the flying doctor and for CareFlight; 133 GP led respiratory clinics, more than half of those in regional Australia; and some great work by the Rural Health Commissioner, Professor Paul Worley, who, despite the regular work he's been doing on formulating policy for health delivery in regional Australia, has played a pivotal role in the COVID-19 crisis, helping GP led respiratory clinics. The role of the Rural Health Commissioner has been very important since it was instigated in 2019.
I'm very proud to say that this morning I introduced into this House the legislation, which hopefully will be debated next week, to extend that role of Rural Health Commissioner, and the office of the Rural Health Commissioner, into the future. It will have an expanded role. The next Rural Health Commissioner will have two deputies with experience in allied health, nursing and Indigenous health to understand that we are going to have a more holistic and multidisciplinary approach to delivering health services to regional Australia. This is along with pharmacy, and I'd like to acknowledge the work that the health minister has done this week in securing the Seventh Community Pharmacy Agreement so that there's certainty in that sector, because, quite frankly, regional Australia is best serviced when we're using all the resources we have at hand.
With the Rural Health Commissioner and with the pharmacy agreement, we will deliver a service to regional Australia that it deserves. With regard to COVID-19, the regions have come out very strongly. People have worked out that they can actually work from the regions with customers overseas or in capital cities. Regional Australia has not only kept this country afloat during this time; it is the way of the future. If we are going to reach the full potential of regional Australia, the people of the regions are going to have a health service that is what they deserve and what they need.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the government modelled how many Australians will have to join the unemployment queues when the JobKeeper wage subsidy is suddenly withdrawn under the Prime Minister's hard snapback in September?
As the secretary of the Treasury said to the COVID committee recently, he expects unemployment in the September quarter to reach about eight per cent. We know that people are doing it tough at the moment. We've gone through a one-in-100-year event. But we also know that we're starting to see confidence pick up across the Australian economy and we have seen consumer confidence pick up around 90 per cent from its low—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. I say to the member for Rankin, before he raises his point of order, that the Treasurer is only 30 seconds in. The Treasurer has the call.
We've seen consumer confidence pick up around 90 per cent from its lows and business confidence pick up around 70 per cent from its lows. So Treasury—in relation to the question that was asked by the member for Rankin—will continue to assess the economic situation. We are undertaking a review into JobKeeper and we will make decisions about the future of that program and we will announce those decisions on 23 July. But I tell you what helps create jobs. It's lower taxes.
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, we've had the preamble now. On direct relevance: the question goes specifically to whether the government has done modelling on this issue or whether it hasn't.
I hear the Manager of Opposition Business. On the face of it, he makes a reasonable point. The difficulty I've got is that the question had the assertion about 'hard snapback in September' and all the rest of it, which does open it up for the preamble that's occurred. I think the Treasurer now has to bring himself to the question. Where he was going just as the Manager of Opposition Business approached the dispatch box was onto the topic of tax, and that is not relevant to the question either directly or indirectly, I've got to say.
Treasury and the government continue to assess the situation. Decisions will be taken about the future of the JobKeeper program, and announcements will be made accordingly.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister outline for the House how the Morrison government is supporting Australian workers and businesses to recover from the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and why it is so important that we do not suffer from a second wave of infections?
These are incredibly extraordinary times. They are extraordinary in so many different ways, but this week the OECD handed out its forecasts for this current year, and Australia was ranked third in those economies that were assessed, but third with a forecast which said that our GDP would fall by five per cent—yet we were still the third-ranked economy on this measure. These are extraordinary times. The idea that your economy would fall by five per cent but that would still place you in the top three of those countries surveyed by the OECD is an indicator of the times and the challenges that we are facing.
The great challenge that we face is dual: it is to stay on top of the health pandemic, as we have always said, but it is to address the economic crisis. We have always believed that both of those had to be addressed in equal measure. That view was not shared by those opposite, but it was certainly where we started and we continue to this day. The economic challenge is addressed through the economic supports and lifelines that we have put in place at record levels, in record time, and extended over a period to give Australians confidence. But what we have also done, through the JobMaker program, is embark on the decisions that we have to make on changes in our economy, whether they be in industrial relations, skills, deregulation, infrastructure or, in particular, energy, to make sure that Australian industry can get the gas it needs—and I welcome the decisions that have been taken by states to open up the gas. In all of these areas, that's where you grow the economy, because that's where the jobs are going to come from for all of those thousands, indeed millions, of Australians who have got fewer hours and who have lost their jobs.
We have made great, great progress, but the challenge ahead is even greater, so the decisions we make now are about the next five years, and the five years of changes we make will set up the next 30 years of prosperity, and we cannot put it at risk. So that's why I say to those who are contemplating on engaging in a mass rally this weekend: don't do it. Follow the health advice. Don't attend. Do the right thing by your fellow Australians. Protect the lives and the livelihoods. Protect the businesses. Now is the time not to talk about what people want to tear down but what we're going to build up together. And I would urge those who are considering this—I say it in total respect for the issues they wish to raise—please find another way to do it and do it with the support of your fellow Australians.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Does the Leader of the Opposition want to support that? I was just going to give him indulgence. I thought he was going to speak on indulgence.
Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking the call?
Yes, Mr Speaker. I'm quite happy to take up the Prime Minister's invitation. How long would you like me to have, Prime Minister?
It's me that grants the indulgence.
I have consistently, as the Prime Minister knows full well, said that people should follow the medical advice and should not participate in gatherings against that medical advice.
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 Blaxland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government’s failure to support tradespeople in the housing construction industry.
I call upon those 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—
Today in question time we asked a whole bunch of questions about the HomeBuilder program, but I think the one that revealed the most about what makes this government tick was the question asked by member for Macquarie about people who had had their homes burned down in the bushfires over Christmas. I think we would all agree that if there was anybody we should try to help in this place, it is people who had their homes burned down, who need to rebuild their homes and rebuild their lives, who saw a lifetime of work and effort incinerated in front of them.
Under this HomeBuilder scheme, if you want to put another floor on your two-storey house and you can get the paperwork done in time then it is happy days—here is $25,000. But if you're one of those people who had your house burned down like the people in Bilpin, when the Prime Minister was on holidays in Hawaii, and you can't get the paperwork done by New Year's Eve, either because of trauma or problems with insurance companies or getting DAs through, then you might just miss out.
What we asked in question time today of the Prime Minister was for a little bit of help for these people, a guarantee that you'll be there for them to help them to access this scheme and he couldn't provide that assurance. In the teeth of these bushfires, as people had their homes burned down and other people saw flames lapping at their doors, people felt like the Prime Minister had abandoned them. They felt like the government had abandoned them. I fear now, when they hear this news, that people who had their homes burned down who can't get guaranteed access to this scheme—if things beyond their control mean they can't get to it—will feel abandoned and ignored again.
And it is not just these people who feel abandoned by this government; it is also the tradies and all the people who work in the home building industry. This is not a small industry. It employs about a million people and it's an industry that relies on a continuous pipeline of work, a pipeline that's drying up at the moment. Everybody in this place, surely, now knows that this is an industry that's headed off a cliff. The predictions before the coronavirus hit said that there would be 160,000 homes built this year, plenty of work for the industry. Now it is predicted that will drop to as low as 100,000. If that happens, it means lots of tradies would lose their jobs, lots of people who make the materials to build homes would lose their jobs. That is why we have been banging on about this for weeks. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and I, and the whole team, have been saying that you have to take action to help save jobs in this industry. Last week, the government finally responded with this HomeBuilder scheme. But instead of building a guardrail at the top of the cliff, they've put a Tontine mattress at the bottom. Remember that I talked about 160,000 homes being built at the start of this year—at least that was the prediction from the Master Builders Association, which the minister mentioned in question time. Their prediction is that it will now drop to 100,000. They got Ernst & Young to do some analysis on what it would mean if you did different levels of stimulus. Based on what the government has put together here in HomeBuilder, it will provide a net extra 10,000 homes. So, it will help a bit. It will save some jobs and mean that some homes are built.
But it is not going to save all of those tradies' jobs. It will mean that, for a lot of tradies who would otherwise be on the job building homes, all they're going to be building is a longer line at Centrelink. Just for comparison sake think about what we did when the global financial crisis hit, because that smashed the housing industry like it is being smashed now. We put together a scheme that provided grants to first home owners to build new homes. We also funded the construction of new social housing and the repair and maintenance—you might call it renovation—of other homes.
70,000!
It was more than that, Labor Leader Anthony Albanese; it was 80,000—20,000 new homes and 80,000 homes renovated or repaired. It saved the jobs of lots of tradies and it helped stave off a recession. Compare that to what the government is doing here. You've got a crisis that is arguably bigger than it was during the GFC. The government's own documents say that the construction industry is being hit harder. More jobs are at risk. This is not about staving off a recession; we're already in a recession. What the government has put together in this HomeBuilder package is less than one-tenth of the rescue package we delivered for the industry during the GFC—so, bigger problem, smaller rescue package. That is why organisations like Credit Suisse have said, 'We doubt that the incentives delivered are large enough, nor the eligibility criteria wide enough to really move the needle.'
Unlike anything we did, there is nothing in here to help people who don't even have a roof over their heads. I think the last few months have reminded us all just how important a safe and affordable home is. We've all been told to stay at home. It's what has kept us safe. It is our homes that have provided the shield to protect us from the virus. Australians experiencing homelessness, people sleeping rough in our parks and streets, have been provided a home. They have been put into empty hotel and motel rooms. But that's all temporary and is set to end. There are more Aussies today who are homeless than ever before. That's what the census said. That stereotype of the average homeless person being an old bloke on a park bench with a bottle of grog in a brown paper bag is just not true. What do you think the largest group of Australians who are homeless is? It's mums and kids, fleeing domestic violence, trying to get a home for the night and getting knocked back because there's no bed. Which group of Australians do you think is the fastest growing group of homeless Australians at the moment? It is older women, those in the 55 to 65 age group. That could be our mum, our aunties or our sisters. Believe it or not, tonight, one in 10 Australians sleeping rough in Sydney are probably going to be veterans—somebody who wears medals on Anzac Day and sleeps in the park at night. There's nothing in this package for them, which is why the OECD this week said that we should be doing something here.
It could have been a win-win. We could have created homes for people who need them the most and created thousands and thousands of jobs for tradies. But we didn't get that. Instead, what we got was this: 'Renovation rescue for tradies' jobs'. That was on the front page of The Australian last Monday. I reckon there would have been a lot of people waking up and thinking, 'Well, I want to renovate the bathroom and the kitchen. Happy days, I'll be able to get some help here!' The Prime Minister encouraged that way of thinking, because he said, 'If you’ve been putting off that renovation, the extra 25 grand we're putting on the table now means it's time to get started.' It turns out that it's all rubbish. You see, if you want a new kitchen or a new dunny, it's easy; you just have to bulldoze the whole house. You've got to look at the detail. To qualify for this scheme, you've got to spend more than 150,000 bucks on the reno—$150,000 to $750,000 on a renovation—and you've got to earn less than $125,000 a year. I don't know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, but I don't know a lot of people who have a lazy 150 grand laying around to lob into a renovation. I asked the Treasurer about this on Tuesday. I asked, 'How many people are going to be winners out of this renovation rescue?' The answer was 7,000. That's it—7,000 people. It's more 'Scotty Sham' than Scotty Cam, and that's why it has been almost universally bagged across the media.
I gave the minister some examples in question time today, from Domain. But it doesn't end there. I quote from a Daily Telegrapharticle titled 'Battler's hammer reno cash':
Prime Minister Scott Morrison's $688 million HomeBuilder plan has been slammed as a "kick in the guts" to Aussie battlers.
From The Weekend Australian: 'HomeBuilder doesn't go far enough for tradies'. From The Courier-Mail: 'Locals shun reno scheme'. Here's another one from The Courier-Mail: 'Concerns HomeBuilder scheme won't help the construction industry'. This is one from news.com.au: 'Scott Morrison's HomeBuilder scheme declared a "dud" that will make the well-off richer and fail to save construction jobs'.
This has gone off quicker than a seafood milkshake. Australians aren't stupid; they can see through the spin and see through slogan after slogan after slogan. They've worked it out; they've realised there's not much in this for them. I can't think of a better example where a government has developed this cynical marketing ploy to try to create the impression that they're doing something to help people instead of actually doing something to help.
This renovation rescue is only going to help a lucky few. Everyone else is left behind. The people who need a roof over their head—left behind. The mums and kids fleeing domestic violence—left behind. Thousands and thousands of tradies who need extra work—left behind. Worst of all, thousands of people who had their homes burned down could potentially miss out on the scheme. We couldn't get that guarantee from the Prime Minister today. That's why I say this is 'HomeBlunder'. The government has stuffed this up. We're in a recession. Thousands of jobs are at risk, and this government needs to take action to protect these jobs. (Time expired)
The shadow minister thinks he knows more than the industry. Each time the shadow minister refers to the HomeBuilder program as not supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in the residential construction industry, he says he knows more than the Master Builders Association or the HIA. The HIA have said that the HomeBuilder package will support the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes or renovation projects.
This shadow minister has got form. What we know will happen is that in three or four or maybe even two months time—certainly in six months time—he'll say, 'We never opposed HomeBuilder.' He'll say to the more than 20,000 people who buy their first home, a house-and-land package or an apartment, or to those people who undertake a substantial rebuild: 'No, no, we never opposed HomeBuilder. We just wanted to improve it. We never opposed giving you a $25,000 grant to purchase your first home.' We saw it with the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. Through Kristina Keneally, the Labor Party called the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme 'socialism' and criticised it. They adopted it shortly thereafter; I note that the shadow minister has very forcefully adopted the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, put in place by the Morrison government, and lauded what a wonderful program it is. So we know where this will end. We know that in the end the Labor Party will say: 'No, we always supported HomeBuilder. We always supported it. We just wanted to improve it.'
Let me tell members opposite what the HomeBuilder program is already doing. Rory Costelloe, from Villawood Properties, who deals predominantly in the first-home-buyer market, has said that since the HomeBuilder announcement numbers have dramatically risen to reach their highest levels since the boom days of 2017. They've gone from single-digit weekly sales in March, and they have increased exponentially since the announcement.
Now, at the end of the day, what do new-home sales for those builders mean?
Yes, of course, it means that there's a very happy young couple, possibly, or single person who's purchasing their first home, or a family who might be upgrading from their unit or townhouse to that family home, with the assistance of the Morrison government's HomeBuilder program. Yes, there'll be those good stories. But every single one of those sales that Villawood Properties refers to—or Oliver Hume, as I referred to earlier, or Simonds Properties—means jobs in the residential construction industry.
The Labor Party are no longer the party for those people who work in residential construction. They've got no idea about the lives they lead and they've got no idea about the pipeline of work that they need to sustain them. As I make the point each and every time I rise in this chamber, the hundreds of thousands of jobs are not just the jobs that we think about when you're pouring a slab or when the carpenter's putting up the frame or the bricklayer is laying the bricks, or the sparkies or plumbers or the roofers come on site. There is an entire ecosystem that the HomeBuilder program will support. Graham Wolf from the HIA said, 'The HomeBuilder Program will unlock up to $15 billion of activity in the residential construction industry'—$15 billion, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry. A great benefit will be that there will be more than 20,000 people who get to purchase a brand-new home, and the majority of those will be first home buyers realising that dream of getting a property of their own for the first time in their lives. We estimate there will be another 7,000—but it's a demand-driven program—who will undertake a substantial rebuild.
Let me address a couple of the points that were pretty woefully made by the shadow minister but I think were highlighted by the PM in question time. HomeBuilder, much to the chagrin of the Labor Party, is not intended to be pink batts 2.0. It is not pink batts 2.0, where 'Dodgy Brothers' are going door to door and getting vulnerable people to sign up for a new flat-pack kitchen or bathroom. That's what the Labor Party are suggesting every time they criticise this policy. This is for substantial projects that employ Australians—multiple trades. This is not for projects that arrive in a flat-pack box from IKEA and that were manufactured in another country and don't create any jobs in this country. Is that the program that the Labor Party think supports residential construction jobs in Australia? It shows they haven't learnt their lesson. They haven't learnt the lesson from pink batts. The shadow minister should have learnt his lesson—many of the members opposite weren't here then, so I don't blame them. But the shadow minister was a member of that government, and he should know better.
This policy provides a $25,000 grant for new home buyers, a $25,000 grant for substantial rebuilds. It's a program that will work seamlessly with state and territory based programs. I'm very pleased to report to the House, for those that don't already know, that the Western Australian Labor government have strongly backed in the HomeBuilder program and put in place their own $20,000 grant for new homes—not just for first home buyers but for new homes—to mirror, to a large degree, the federal government's HomeBuilder program. A new home purchaser, potentially a first home buyer in Western Australia, will be able to add all of those grants together to assist them to get into a first home. The Tasmanian state government has added a $20,000 new home buyer grant similarly, days after our announcement, to do the same thing. Again, we see governments at a federal and state level working in concert to support an extraordinarily important industry for this country. The workers in that industry have already benefited, to a large degree, from the JobKeeper program—120,000 registrations through JobKeeper have been from the construction industry. But, again, the one area that the shadow minister and I can agree on is that there is a cliff. There is a cliff face as the pipeline of work ends. Residential sales almost fell off a cliff in March—there were almost no sales. And that pipeline of work will hit in the second half of this year.
That is why another important part of the HomeBuilder program is to ensure that it's time-limited and that it brings forward that demand to when the shortfall in work is going to occur: in the second half of this year. We have seen so much evidence that the urgency that that has created means that it has been the catalyst for first home buyers, like the ones I referred to in question time, to say: 'You know what? Let's do it now. We've been trying to save that deposit. This is going to, firstly, help us with our serviceability. It's going to bring down the total amount that we have to put towards a home. Let's do it now. Let's do it before 31 December while this program is in place.'
Again, I fully suspect that the shadow minister and members opposite in a few months time will be furiously supporting this policy, just as they now furiously support the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. As I said, HomeBuilder works with not just state based programs but other Morrison government initiatives. The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme allows eligible first home buyers to purchase a home with a deposit of as little as five per cent. It has been extraordinarily popular. As I said, Senator Kristina Keneally referred to it as 'socialism' when it was first announced, and now the shadow minister enthusiastically supports the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme.
Well, what I am excited about is: on 1 July, when another 10,000 places under the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme become available, we will see first home buyers who utilise the Morrison government First Home Loan Deposit Scheme so that they only require a deposit of five per cent also getting a HomeBuilder grant because they purchase a new home—a house and land package or a new apartment. Those people will be utilising the full spectrum of support that the Morrison government has put in place to get people into a home, because, in the end, the coalition's parties are the parties of home ownership. The coalition's parties are the parties who support the residential construction industry, who support our tradies and who support the timber mill workers who supply the frames and the trusses. And I look forward to the shadow minister coming in here with his tail between his legs in some months time saying, 'Oh, yes, we always supported the HomeBuilder program.' (Time expired)
Well, it is no wonder that this scheme has quickly become known as 'home blunder' because, like so much that this government does, it was clearly always a matter of spin over substance, packaged up for a by-election announcement—even if the PM did make that most un-Australian of mistakes and encourage people to step on some newly sown grass while making it! It sounded like support for people to do renovations that they might not otherwise be confident to do during a recession and like it would help ensure jobs in the construction industry that could last through the recession. Instead, it's a bit of extra cash for wealthy people to go ahead with renovations they already had planned.
And you don't have to take my word for that. Here's some feedback from respected economists. My colleague the member for Fenner has looked at the numbers and, on the ABS data, concluded this would support the wealthiest fifth of Australians. Nicki Hutley, a partner at Deloitte Access Economics observed:
All I can see that this is going to do is give a hand out to people who probably would have gone ahead with this anyway … If people were baulking about going ahead because they were worried about the economy or job security, it's probably not a good idea to encourage them to do so.
And quite frankly giving handouts to people, who already own their homes when there are so many who can't get their foot in the door would seem to me to be not very wise policy.
She went on to say:
The cynic in me would say they're under a lot of pressure from the sector to do something, and quite rightly. It's actually a cornerstone of the Australian economy and one of the largest sectors …
I don't see this as cynical. It is, in fact, calling out the government for exactly what it has done: spin over substance.
If the government really wanted to support the construction industry, they would do much better to look at the suggestions that Labor has put on the table. They would do much better to look to the huge need in this country for social housing. We have too many people sleeping rough in this country. We have women and children at risk of violence in their own homes who have nowhere to go. We have people with disability stuck in nursing homes because there's nowhere suitable for them to live. We have frontline workers—the supermarket workers, the police, the nurses and the childcare workers; the people we've talked up and who we've been relying on through this crisis—who can't afford to live anywhere near their work. All of these people would have their lives changed dramatically if this government would step up and support them. But is that what they're interested in doing? I might have missed it, but did the Assistant Treasurer talk about these people at all? Did he reference them? Did he reference the support that they need? I heard a lot about Labor in his speech, which really goes to show where their focus is: attacking Labor, with spin over substance, and support for the wealthy, not for people who need it most.
Again, you don't have to take my word for the fact that this is a dud scheme. We know that investing in social housing would genuinely provide construction jobs into the future and not rely on work that would have happened anyway. The OECD, whose report the government has made so much of this week, has called for investment in a social housing program as part of efforts to support jobs through this recession. The PM just said there's no greater focus for his government than jobs post this crisis. Well, this isn't the scheme for that.
The PM also just said that the scheme was never meant to support small renovations. He spoke about how in fact he'd deliberately cut out lower and middle income earners from being supported through this scheme, and then he had the gall to suggest that it was people over this side that might be out of touch with people in the suburbs. I know the Prime Minister has been very busy dealing with the crisis, and I do understand that, but, if he suggests that we haven't been out in the suburbs, I suggest it might be time for him to go out and talk with a few low- and middle-income earners in Australia about how they feel about this scheme, because it certainly will not be supporting them.
Of course, the other thing this scheme does not do is support the jobs of the future. We know we already have a crisis in terms of apprenticeships, trade training and TAFE in this country. Before this happened, the TAFEs in my electorate were telling me they're struggling. They were telling me they're not getting the support they need to get the pipeline of workers we will need in these industries in the future. Now the industry are saying they're facing the loss of 2,000 apprentices a year. There's nothing in this package that supports that or that will mean that we get construction jobs into the future, that we'll have apprentices or that we'll have an industry going forward. This is a failure of a scheme.
What an opportunity this afternoon is to strip away a lot of the politics and go to the heart of one of the most important sectors in Australia's economy, the construction and building sector! Many of us agreed that, when it came to shedding jobs in the second half of the year, probably the most important sector we had to look at that wasn't easily addressed with some of the other nationwide payments was building and construction. So today I just want to unpick a little exactly what this scheme is all about and, secondly, try and decipher precisely why Labor are animating themselves at the end of a working week to try and pull apart this job-making scheme, which focuses on a sector that most critically needs it—the valley of death, as the Master Builders have referred to.
First of all, let's just remember this is fundamentally a new home-buying scheme, not overly dissimilar to schemes that the Labor Party have not only proposed and supported but actually initiated. Overwhelmingly—in about 75 per cent of the cases—it will be new homes being built. I will explain to the Labor Party—whose speeches, straight from the opposition leader's office, have been eloquently read in this chamber but are not responding to the particular question—that this is about additional housing stock. Think about this: additional housing stock.
When you've only done five minutes of economics, you often don't understand that where a subsidy is paid is not always where it lands. There is something we call subsidy incidence, the opposite of tax incidence. What it means is: if the government pays a certain amount of money, where does it end up? It doesn't end up with wealthy people, because they are deliberately excluded from the scheme, and it doesn't necessarily end up with the person one pays the subsidy to, because they immediately pay that subsidy to a building company who employ people. But the problem here is that those people are probably not union members, and that's the fundamental heart of the Labor objection to this scheme, because they are obsessed with large commercial construction, where they have union membership at stake. They have almost no union membership in small housing construction, and this is a very bad thing for the Labor Party.
This is what is at the heart of this. What are we trying to fix here? We saw gouged out of Australia's economy the construction of housing and the confidence to move into housing projects. I speak as someone who's been involved in a property subdivision and understands just how complicated these schemes are. While they were on ice—
Mr Dick interjecting—
It's not an illegal activity, I might remind the member for Oxley. These people deliver housing for the people who need it most.
I want to say this: let's remember that, for every bit of housing delivered in this nation, you add to the housing stock. Whether you pay it to a first-home builder, a person who builds a new rebuild or someone who engages a major renovation, you free up another dwellings to be rented back into the market, bringing down rental prices and improving the prospects of those who need social housing—those who receive the $4.5 billion in rent assistance. You simply need more stock, and that's why you don't support renovations of kitchens and bathrooms with the scheme. It's not, as Labor will put to you, because you don't like the people that build bathrooms and kitchens; it's because it doesn't add to the housing stock one iota. It doesn't improve the situation for renters. It doesn't help social housing. And the overwhelming majority of those who need government assistance to secure housing receive rent assistance. For every new home we build, there's one more home, left behind by the person who applied for the scheme and moved into the new house, that's available for renters—something that's completely beyond the Labor Party. I appreciate that, when there's no union membership involved, suddenly the scheme isn't legitimate, but it's almost identical to the scheme the Labor Party brought out during the GFC. We've simply broadened the scheme from a new-build scheme to a new-build/rebuild scheme. There will be about 7,000 examples—let's say 40 per electorate. If there's a major rebuild that adds to the housing stock, as defined by the ATO, so be it.
As for the last argument from Labor about the lazy $150,000 lying around, that's not how you buy a house. You talk to a lender when you buy a house. This is not designed for people with money lying around that's 'lazy', as they so disappointingly describe it. One goes to a lender and asks if one can build a home or substantially rebuild a home. That is now a definition that's understood. Every tradie who sided with Labor now understands that and has sided with the government. Every job created is important in this sector. We value this sector. We understand them. We're not about eking out union memberships from them. And for every house that's built under this scheme—and we anticipate up to 20,000, possibly more—that's new rental stock left behind by those who move into the newly constructed homes.
It's always a delight to follow on from the genius member for Bowman, who's spent 16 years languishing on the backbench. They say, 'Our colleagues know us once.' We often ask ourselves why he has not spent one minute on the frontbench. After that demonstration, we know the answer. When I was growing up, my father would often say, 'Come off the grass.' He used that expression all the time when I was a kid. This government is so arrogant that, when they announce policies, they go to someone's front yard and stand all over the grass and then have to asked to get off the grass. Great advancing, PMO! Well done on a great start. It says everything we need to know about this arrogant government—arrogance when announcing the scheme and arrogance in its implementation.
The HomeBuilder scheme looks like it's completely failing. From what we can see so far, as of 3.50 this afternoon, nobody has applied for it. If you go on the website, you can't even formally apply. The federal government website only asks people to provide their email address. This is in complete contrast to last week's front page of The Australian: 'Renovation rescue for tradies' jobs'. I thought: here we go! 'Work for one million tradies' is what they said. The only problem is, as we found out this week, it's for 7,000 renovations. It's all rubbish. As the shadow minister said, it's not 'Scotty Sham'; it's Scotty Cam. But we know that, time and time again, the proof is in the pudding when it comes to this government.
You only need to look at some of the News Corp headlines: 'Scott Morrison's HomeBuilder scheme declared a "dud" that will make the well-off richer and fail to save construction jobs'. The article says:
Experts say the government's HomeBuilder scheme will do little more than fund fancy decks for well-off people to sip Chardonnay on and overpriced luxury kitchens full of European fittings and fixtures … HomeBuilder has been described as "a good idea gone bad" …
We know from the coverage of this that it has been described as 'possibly the most complex and least equitable program the government could have devised to deliver construction jobs'. A quote from the news coverage of this in the News Limited papers said:
Rather than provide a lifeline to the struggling construction sector, which is at risk of losing hundreds of thousands of jobs as demand slumps … the program "is a way of making people who are reasonably well off richer".
"It might build more nice decks for sipping Chardonnay – most already planned – (and) it might deliver ritzy new bathrooms with imported taps or even new kitchens with the latest European appliances, but it won't help those suffering housing stress," …
There you have it: experts ridiculing this policy.
I want to turn to my home state of Queensland. In the Courier Mail this week, the article 'Few Queenslanders plan to take up HomeBuilder scheme for renovations' said:
Just 0.03 per cent of Queenslanders were forecast to take up the $25,000 HomeBuilder grant to do a major renovation, with the Federal Government banking on a higher uptake for new home builds.
Here we have an announcement by the government—great headlines splashed across all the newspapers—but, when you drill down into this, when you actually look into it, what the scheme doesn't deliver is one extra cent for social housing. Not one extra cent! While the government's priority is to build fancy decks for people to drink Chardonnay on, to the people who are waiting to get into housing, the thousands of Queenslanders on waiting lists, this government says: 'Wait your turn. Just wait because we've got other priorities.' This government's priorities are all wrong.
We know that it's incredibly disappointing that the government refuses to take action on constructing more social housing, on repairing and maintaining existing social housing, on the construction of more rental accommodation for frontline workers and on the expansion of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme for new builds and grants to first home buyers who buy their own first home. This scheme is a dud, it's not going to work and, today, we condemn the government for not delivering a program to deliver real construction jobs and housing for this country. (Time expired)
I'm very pleased for this opportunity today to say some words around the government's HomeBuilder program. This is another important plank in the platform that this government has built to support our economy. After all Australians have done so very well at flattening the curve of coronavirus, we must now shift our focus—as we are—to our No. 1 priority of securing and building more jobs.
The HomeBuilder program will support one million jobs. We're talking about jobs for tradies like carpenters, tilers, bricklayers, electricians, plumbers and, of course, those involved in the manufacturing of home building materials—things like the wood that goes into construction, the windows that go into those houses, the tiles that go onto the roof. This program is designed to drive demand today for those families whose ability to enter the market was impacted by the coronavirus but who are now ready to build or substantially renovate their property. We have seen over 2,000 people in WA sign up to get to the next level and receive more information about how they can apply, and they join over 20,000 people nationally.
I'm also pleased to note that the state government in my home state of Western Australia has a complimentary building bonus package of $20,000 for the construction of a new home. This, combined with the first home owners grant of $10,000 and first home buyers stamp duty concession of $14,000, really shows how the WA state government and the federal government are working together to jointly back in the residential construction sector.
There has been a consistent theme during this crisis. We've seen state and territory leaders, both coalition and Labor, join with our federal leader with a single focus, a shared mission of saving lives and livelihoods. Regardless of how well those in my electorate and around the country have perceived the government's response, those opposite seem intent on dragging it down and talking down the economy. That's not the feedback I'm getting in my electorate. Recently, the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Michaelia Cash, and I had a tele town hall. We invited people to join a live conference with us. We said: 'Tell us what's going well. Let's hear your suggestions for improvement.' We were there to listen. We had some great conversations, and along the way we posed a question. We said: 'Do you (1) generally approve of the Morrison government's response to COVID-19 or (2) generally disapprove of the Morrison government's response to COVID-19?' Those opposite, who frankly are trying to drag down the government's response, may be interested to know that of the respondents on that phone call 93 per cent agreed with the government's response to coronavirus. I welcome others to conduct their own surveying, but certainly, both anecdotally and now statistically, I can share that Australians approve of the government's response.
Are we perfect? No, of course not. Is our response perfect? No, it's not. We are listening and you will have observed that we have made amendments along the way. But fundamentally this is focused not on what is happening inside these four walls but on supporting all Australians through this very difficult time. One of the best ways we can do that is to support jobs, which this package is absolutely focused upon.
We've also been accused of being insensitive to public housing. That is rubbish and is something that my colleagues and I will absolutely not cop. This government provides more than $6 billion every year to support Australians who need housing assistance: $4.6 billion in Commonwealth rent assistance and $1.6 billion to states and territories to support homelessness services. In my first speech I spoke about a very personal encounter of myself and my wife supporting a young mother with a baby and two children, who rapidly became homeless. When we reached out on her behalf for support for housing it was absolutely there.
This debate highlights a significant difference between both sides of the House. Those opposite are focused on talking down our economy and the government's response, and we are focused absolutely, as we will remain so, on saving lives and livelihoods.
I join my colleagues today in speaking about the home blunder program, a $688 million scheme to help people who were already going to build a house, build that house. What a program! My colleagues have highlighted the lack of ambition that this government has when it comes to stimulating the economy and the construction industry: $688 million, versus Labor's investment of almost $7 billion in social housing when the global financial crisis hit. It is astounding that, even in a pandemic, this government has prioritised home renos for rich people over public housing for Australians who need a roof over their head. As my colleague the member for Fenner has pointed out, only the wealthiest fifth of Australians will be eligible for this scheme. It is astounding that, in a year when thousands of Australians have lost their homes in the bushfires, that is not a focus of this program. When the member for Macquarie asked question about that today in question time, the Prime Minister failed to give an assurance that those people would be able to access any support through this scheme.
The pandemic has made it clearer than ever that safe and secure housing is fundamental to the health and safety of human beings. Our homes have become our sanctuaries as we have socially distanced over the last few months. In Canberra, as we were blanketed by hazardous smoke for most of January, our houses protected us from that toxic bushfire smoke that the bushfire royal commission has heard is linked to the deaths of 445 Australians—that is, for those of us that were lucky enough to have a home. Housing is essential to living a good life, and yet over 116,000 Australians don't have a home. In the five years to 2016, the latest ABS data on this issue, homelessness increased by around 14 per cent. This is a national disgrace. If the government truly wanted to support tradespeople in the housing construction industry, they would build homes for these 116,000 Australians. Not only would you be helping tradespeople; you'd be creating a demand for new workers in the building industry and you'd be saving governments over $25,000 per homeless person—according to research from the University of Melbourne—if you housed people rather than leaving them on the streets. It is this kind of multipronged public policy that has been missing from this government during the pandemic. We have a perfect storm here, where we have people without their homes and a need to stimulate the economy, and that's where we should be investing.
Australians are calling out for vision in these dark times, but the Prime Minister is not delivering. Even before the pandemic, the huge fall in the number of apprentice tradies in Australia demonstrates that the housing construction industry was under stress. As my colleague the member for Sydney pointed out just yesterday, under this government, Australia has lost 140,000 apprentices and trainees since the coalition came to power. According to new modelling from the National Australian Apprenticeships Association, we're set to lose another 100,000 by the end of the year. If the Prime Minister wanted to create jobs for these apprentices, a social housing construction boom would go a long way to saving this lost generation of tradies.
Of course, Labor were ahead of the government in our vision for reforming the economy in the face of economic downturn. No. 1 on our shadow minister's list of recommendations to the government was to construct more social housing; No. 2 was to repair and maintain existing social housing; No. 3 was to construct more affordable rental housing for frontline workers; and the final two recommendations focused on first home buyers and builders—the group of Australians most locked out of housing ownership. These are recommendations based on research. These are recommendations that respond to known issues faced by Australians. We get these ideas from experts and from our community. Where did the government get their plan from? Where is the research that shows that people who earn $125,000 a year and have $150,000 to spend on a renovation or building a house are in desperate need of $25,000? Can someone on that side of the chamber please table this research for us to consider.
Here in the ACT, the Barr government will deliver the highest investment in social housing per capita of any jurisdiction in Australia, spending $100 million to deliver 1,000 renovated public housing properties and 200 additional public housing homes. That is the sort of prioritisation of people in need that we need to see from this government. That is the kind of investment in housing that we need to see for people who are struggling to get into the market. This government is leaving too many people behind as it responds to this pandemic and more generally.
It's a great pleasure to have the opportunity to rise in the chamber this afternoon to defend the government's HomeBuilder program. It's always pleasing, when I sit here and listen to the Labor members opposite, to remind myself how little they have learnt from their failures of the past. They keep going back to this failed narrative that shows how out of touch they are with Australian families and Australian tradies. They just fall back into their narrative of class warfare—the member for Jagajaga and the member for Oxley went there in a flash. Let's hope that the member for Jagajaga and the member for Oxley are in charge of the opposition's policies at the next election, because, if they keep relying on this class warfare nonsense, they will continue to be completely out of touch with the tradies and the families of this nation, who this government is supporting with a program like this. It's the same class warfare strategy that led them to the last election with a policy of introducing $31 billion in new housing taxes. What was that going to mean for the tradies and for the jobs in the construction industry of Australia? The Master Builders Association found that Labor's policies at the last election would have led to 42,000 fewer new dwellings, 32,000 fewer full-time jobs and an $11.8 billion drop in building activity. That is Labor's record. We, as a government, are about building and creating jobs. They are about stopping that building, tearing it down and taxing construction industry jobs out of existence. Instead, we have created the HomeBuilder program to provide a tax-free grant of $25,000 to build a new home or substantially renovate.
The HomeBuilder program will support rather than destroy jobs. It will support 140,000 direct jobs and another one million related jobs in residential construction. Just to demonstrate how in touch with the Australian people this program is, we have already had over 20,000 suburban families registering for the program as the states start signing up and rolling it out, including over 5,408 families in our home state of Queensland. The member for Oxley was just up on his feet, deriding the program and saying it was only for the rich. Well, here we have it: he's ignoring the 5,408 families of Queensland who are already signed up and are just waiting on the Queensland state Labor government to help us administer this program.
Mr Thompson interjecting—
He could indeed. I'll take the member for Herbert's interjection. The member for Oxley could just call his brother, the state Treasurer, and get things moving for those 5,408 families, but, instead, he sits here and plays class warfare. This is a thought out, targeted program that recognises the unique challenges that the construction industry is facing post COVID and the real possibility of the construction pipeline drying up. The HomeBuilder program will prevent that.
It's important to have these kinds of thought out, targeted programs, because we know what happens when you don't. When you have a program that isn't thought out, that is rushed in and that isn't targeted, you end up with programs like the pink batts program that the Labor members opposite rolled out. What does that do? It doesn't create jobs. In fact, their rollout, which cost over $2 billion, resulted in over 220 house fires, 70,000 repairs and—most tragic of all—four deaths, because they didn't take the time to think out and properly target their program. Over $1 billion has been spent just to rectify the problems that the Labor members created. So we won't take any lectures from the Labor members opposite as we roll out these programs. We will make sure that we implement programs which are, indeed, thought out and targeted and have a specific aim. And, in this case, it is ensuring that there is a considered pipeline of work for the construction industry to undertake over the next six months.
As a government, we are creating jobs and we are building. We won't entertain the objections from the Labor members, who simply want to tear things down and go back to the class warfare and rhetoric of the last election, which served them so poorly. This government will continue to implement the HomeBuilder program, create jobs and support Australian families.
What a risible performance from the Liberal members today. The way they're behaving, you would think that we are against the idea of stimulus for the housing and construction sector, when actually we are the people arguing that it needs to go further and that they need to do better. They're not doing enough to stimulate the sector. Australia is set to lose a further 100,000 apprentices and trainees this year, a massive 35 per cent drop on what we have now. Tasmania is set to lose 2,107. It's no wonder that our nation has a shortage of bricklayers, plumbers, hairdressers, panelbeaters and other critical trades. How does this Prime Minister expect HomeBuilder to rebuild communities and the economy when his government has slashed support for the apprentices and trainees who are vital to the building and construction industry?
Over the past seven years, this incompetent Liberal government has ripped more than $3 billion from Australia's TAFE and training systems, leaving this critical sector woefully unequipped. No wonder Australia has a skills shortage, with more than 140,000 apprentice and trainee positions lost in this country since those opposite came to office. There are 140,000 already lost, and another 100,000 are soon to join them under this government. What a legacy. It's all very well to talk about construction projects and renovations, but you need tradies and apprentices to build them. The sector was expecting to build 160,000 homes this year. Now it's 100,000. That's 60,000 fewer homes in the pipeline.
This Prime Minister has a plan to get his photo taken next to tradies in high-vis but no real plan to save and build the sector. HomeBuilder is a massive missed opportunity. It is woefully inadequate and woefully misdirected. What sort of person who claims to be a national leader would think up a $688 million housing and renovation program and not put one cent—not one cent—towards public housing or towards housing for women escaping domestic violence?
There are 3,500 Tasmanians on Tasmania's priority public housing list. People could be waiting for a year or more for a place. We are talking about pensioners, veterans, single parents, people with disabilities, women escaping domestic violence, people who could do with a bit of a hand and, more importantly, a roof over their head. Dave, for instance, has been on the housing priority list for several years and lives in a car. He sleeps on his mate's couches sometimes. He has been told to go to a men's shelter but it doesn't have room and Dave is keen for a place to call home. Then there is Bill, living in a one-bedroom public house now, away from his wife and the grandchild they care for. Bill is in a wheelchair and the unit is not wheelchair friendly. He is desperate to reunite with his family.
If you are not convinced by the social good argument, be convinced by the raw economic argument. Tradies would be kept busier building more homes for these folk and fixing public housing than they would be building pool decks and second storeys. Imagine the maintenance backlogs that could have been cleared if armies of tradies were deployed to fix up public housing around the country in desperate need of repair—mould in kids' bedrooms because of crappy ventilation, leaking kitchens, dangerous electrical outlets, security fly screens that don't lock. What is the better use of public money? Which one delivers the better bang for buck?
Instead, this Prime Minister has designed a scheme that gives $25,000 to people with at least $150,000 to spend on a reno and it locks out the vast majority of Tasmanians. I asked local builders in my electorate how many had done renovations of $150,000 over the past couple of years? There was one reno in two years—one. This is a poorly designed scheme that fails to do what it is meant to—stimulate building and construction, which was sputtering even before COVID, and since then is heading for the cliff.
The Prime Minister's performance in question time today was a disgrace when he said he had deliberately designed a scheme to lock pensioners out. Pensioners who want to renovation their kitchens, he has deliberately locked them out and he basically labelled the entire small trade sector 'crooked' and a 'sham'. He stands condemned for that, and I hope people remember it at the next election.
I would like to thank the shadow minister for the opportunity to speak about a few things I am really passionate about—jobs, housing and Western Sydney. There is nothing a family wants more than to have their own home. I've seen in our community the devastating impacts on families when affordability is out of reach. Prior to coming into parliament, I worked at a community housing provider where I saw first-hand the benefits of our government investing in affordable housing in my own community, in Lindsay, for women escaping domestic violence and for families who were struggling to make ends meet and, at the other end of the spectrum, people who had been experiencing homelessness, getting back on their feet again.
Our government invests in housing and our government, the Morrison government, invests in affordable housing. In fact, in my electorate of Lindsay, a community housing provider has made use of the Morrison government's National Housing Infrastructure Facility to help unlock new housing supply. I remember the day that I met a woman in one of those apartments in Penrith who talked about her new life after she escaped domestic violence and the aspiration she had for her future. I stood at this apartment with Minister Sukkar to announce this housing for some of the most vulnerable people in our community. At Harts Landing at Thornton, 114 affordable homes were made available for people in my community who need them and 14 social housing dwellings because the Morrison government invests in housing. These apartments are right next door to shops and public transport, and they have changed people's lives—people who had been living out of their cars.
Affordable housing is fundamental to all Australians, not just those who need a safe place to live but also those who are employed in our construction industry and the small and medium sized business owners that are contracted to help put these projects together. This is what the Morrison government is investing in—homes and jobs. It's what builds aspiration. When we invest in housing, we invest in people's future, and now the Morrison government is doing it again. We know that the residential construction sector has not been immune from coronavirus. We need to make sure there is a steady line of work for the housing industry, which is so important to people's aspirations, to people's future, to families.
There are 19,300 technicians, labourers and tradies in Lindsay, and nearly 1,600 apprentices. It is estimated that the HomeBuilder program will support a million tradies—carpenters, electricians, plumbers, painters, bricklayers—as well as timber mill workers and manufacturers of roofing tiles, bricks and windows. There is nothing I am more passionate about than manufacturing, particularly in Western Sydney, because that is about backing local jobs. If it is about supporting jobs in my community, it is worth backing. It's important we don't politicise the issue of housing and the construction industry; it is about job creation and sustaining the industry during and after the coronavirus pandemic and it's about removing barriers to accessing the housing industry. About 20,000 people are expected to take up the grant for new homes, and already around 4,000 are lined up across New South Wales. I know that interest in my community is high around first home owner grants in particular.
Through this MPI, those opposite have given me the opportunity to talk about construction, which is fantastic, because, in addition to new homes, the Morrison government is supporting the construction industry right across my community of Western Sydney. In Lindsay, the North South Rail Link starts at St Marys, and we have three rail stations. Last week I joined the Prime Minister to announce the $11 billion investment in my community. This project alone will unlock thousands of construction jobs. We have the construction of three commuter car parks across Lindsay, in Emu Plains, Kingswood and St Marys, with $60 million invested into Lindsay. The Western Sydney Airport is a $5.3 billion investment, where we already have over 50 per cent local jobs. We have $63½ million going into Dunheved Road. And now we have the investment in the HomeBuilder package, creating and sustaining jobs and supporting Australian families and supporting my community of Lindsay. (Time expired)
The discussion has concluded.
I'm pleased to rise in support of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020. I welcome the opportunity to speak today about the importance of child care and how the government is supporting child care, the childcare system and Australian families. The Morrison government's primary aim is to support families and the childcare sector during the COVID-19 crisis to ensure that quality early childhood education and care is available to vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families.
In my electorate of Longman there are nearly 100 childcare centres, supporting thousands of families and their children. I have had the pleasure to visit many of these centres, regularly engaging with the owners and staff and the families who use their services. I know just how hard these centres work to support families and maintain high-quality care for children in Longman. I know how tough it can be for disadvantaged children and families. Having my own children has taught me the importance of having a strong childcare sector. I want to take this opportunity to thank the childcare centres in my electorate and all across Australia that provide safe child care for Australian families. They do an outstanding job.
As Australian workplaces and businesses reopen and children return to classrooms, the demand for child care is increasing. As the Minister for Education, Dan Tehan, has said, the temporary Early Childhood Education and Care Relief Package has done its job. At the start of the COVID pandemic, the childcare sector saw a significant withdrawal of children from child care. We acted quickly to ensure childcare services would remain available, particularly for our essential workers, by introducing the temporary childcare relief package. We recognised the need to ensure that this vital sector remained open and viable. Our review of the package showed it achieved its objective of keeping services open and viable, with 99 per cent of around 13,400 services operational as at 8 May 2020. A survey also showed that attendance levels had increased 74 per cent as at the week of 11 May 2020. Representations from people across the sector, and from families and businesses in my own electorate, have told me that demand is returning to normal.
I believe that we need to look after our most disadvantaged children, and I know this bill delivers on strengthening the government's support for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families. The bill will amend provisions relating to the additional childcare subsidy and childcare subsidy in the 'A new tax system act of 1999' and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999. This bill clearly shows that, when we return to the demand-driven childcare subsidy system on 13 July 2020, we are committed to improving access to child care for vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families and to cutting red tape that impacts providers, families and governments.
The childcare package has a generous safety net designed to provide higher subsidies to families experiencing financial difficulty. The additional childcare subsidies available for families under temporary financial hardship provide increased childcare fee assistance. A loss of income or employment and an inability to pay childcare fees are just some examples of circumstances for which families may be eligible.
The additional childcare subsidy is also available for families transitioning to work. The period of time a provider can apply for an additional childcare subsidy determination will be extended from 13 weeks up to 12 months for children under a long-term child protection order, such as those in foster care. This change recognises the support that vulnerable children need over longer periods. Other amendments will enable providers to apply to backdate a family's additional childcare subsidy beyond the current limit of 28 days up to 13 weeks in exceptional circumstances. Childcare providers will also be able to enrol children who are in foster care under an additional childcare subsidy from an initial period of up to 13 weeks, giving an individual foster family sufficient time to lodge their childcare subsidy claim and have it assessed by Services Australia. Existing provisions where providers are required to notify Services Australia when a child is no longer considered to be at risk will continue to apply.
The government has proactively engaged the childcare sector for feedback, and this bill strengthens our support for families and providers in response to feedback. I want to again take this opportunity to thank childcare providers across the country who provide safe and high-quality care for children. We are committed to supporting them and Australian families, particularly those most vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We remain committed to supporting people through the transition, or the return, to the means-tested childcare subsidy. We are replacing one type of support package with another type of support package. From 13 July 2020 childcare services will receive approximately $2 billion in childcare subsidies and $708 million in transition payments, along with the means-tested parent contributions. Services are required to guarantee employment levels. We are also stopping fee increases during the transition and relaxing the activity test to relieve financial pressures on families who may be doing it tough. The federal government supports families by providing more than $8.3 billion a year through the childcare subsidy to help them with the cost of child care.
It is clear that the government is delivering on its goal to create a more affordable, accessible and flexible childcare system. I commend this bill to the House, because these reforms will benefit families and childcare providers across my electorate of Longman and will benefit people across Australia.
Mr Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, it is a real thrill to be able to rise and speak this afternoon on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020, a bill that I think has been listed and deferred six, seven or eight times since it was first tabled in the House. I have sat here six, seven or eight times waiting for the chance to talk about childcare policy in this country, and it just thrills me that you are in the chair when I get this opportunity this afternoon to talk about it.
I also give a big shout-out to all the childcare educators who are still working late on this Friday afternoon as we sit and many of whom will still be working until six, 6.30 or seven o'clock. They work very long, hard hours. They are essential workers. They do some of our country's most important work. All of the data and all of the statistics say that the first five years of children's lives are the most important for the rest of their lives. The PwC review said that, for every dollar that we invest in child care, the country gets $2 back. I would note, when people talk about the cost of child care in this country, that getting $2 back means we're spending less on children's preventive health, less on children's welfare and less on children's justice. We just cannot invest enough in this crucial area both for the wellbeing of our kids and for the economic productivity of our country.
It is disappointing, then, that I rise to speak about a number of small but important amendments this evening rather than any broader vision for the country on child care. I say that because earlier this week the government sent out government senator Gerard Rennick, a patron senator of mine—I give a big shout-out to Senator Rennick—to speak about child care, and do you know what he said? His fresh, modern, forward-thinking, future-oriented approach to child care was to say: 'You know what? One parent should stay at home and one child should stay at home with that parent. That's what the children want.' He said:
Dorothy didn't … say, 'There's no place like child care.' She said, 'There's no place like home.'
It really struck a chord. The fact that the government would send someone out to say that in all seriousness, and that we have to actually address it as colleagues in the Australian parliament, really beggars belief. I think it tells us all we need to know that it is a 1939 movie that Senator Rennick quotes when he talks about his vision for Australian child care moving into the future.
I will note that the amendments that the government has proposed today are good ones. They are important ones to help vulnerable families. They help the childcare centres who support those vulnerable families in reducing their bureaucratic red tape. We support them. We're glad to do it, but we can't let this opportunity pass without noting that there are big and important reforms to go in child care, and this is a missed opportunity to make those reforms. Child care in Brisbane costs an average of around $112 per child per day. The average monthly mortgage in Brisbane is 1,885 bucks, or $62 a day, so it's roughly twice the cost of your mortgage per day to put your child into child care in Brisbane. It is a huge amount of money. Childcare costs, on average, absorb 27 per cent of a household's income, of a family's income, which is on par with about 30 per cent for the average mortgage. It's also risen by 150 per cent in cost since 2001.
I note that the now Prime Minister, then Treasurer, introduced childcare reform packages a few years back, and they were designed to reduce the complexity of the system. That's what they said—that they were simplifying the system, merging two payments into one system. Everyone would be happier with a less complex system. But on 2 April, when the childcare minister announced the COVID-19 response package for the sector, he said, 'Now, this is a very complex system that we're grappling with.' Is it? Didn't you just make changes a few years ago to reduce the complexity of this system? You can't have it both ways.
But I will concede that I agree with the childcare minister on that point: it is a complex system, and parents and centres find it very complex to navigate. We could make it a lot simpler. We could make it free, for example. But, if we're not going to do that, we could at least fund it properly, and that starts by addressing the problems with the COVID revision package. Childcare workers did some of our most essential work during COVID, and they do not deserve to be the first people off the boat when it comes to being kicked off JobKeeper. They deserve our thanks and respect. They deserve better pay and conditions. Instead what they're getting is to be first off the life raft—'See you later, educators.' It is a disgrace. In fact, the government could move an amendment to this bill to fix that problem. I urge them to do it. When they talk about JobKeeper, I'm glad they didn't call it 'promise keeper'. They'd be in a right royal pickle now if they'd called it 'promise keeper', because it is nothing but broken promises, and soon it will be lost jobs as well.
I would note that we've just had an MPI on the construction stimulus package. This is a male dominated sector where the average worker receives far more than the average taxpayer, yet it has received a targeted stimulus package from this government. The childcare sector, 97 per cent dominated by women—
Order! After you said such nice things to me it's a bit harsh of me to do this, but it is 4.30.
Debate interrupted.
In 2017, 22-year-old Shannon Moore from East Kurrajong came to me distressed at the threat of legal action over a $2,500 Centrelink debt. She was one of the people stung in the early mail-outs of what has come to be known as robodebt—debts that were often in error and were issued to people without a human being doing any checking of their accuracy. Shannon's was for youth allowance payments while she was studying full-time, and she'd done everything right in alerting the agency to changes in her study and work arrangements.
We now know that this scheme caused terrible harm to hundreds of thousands of Australians like Shannon, and that, in too many cases, a debt notice preceded a suicide or suicide attempt. I have personally spoken to individuals and family members about the serious impact the robodebt process had on their mental health. We learnt in the Senate hearings this week that 2,030 people died after receiving a robodebt notification.
So I don't think an apology that implies 'if hurt was caused' is enough. We know that more than hurt was caused. I don't think an apology that fails to acknowledge the scheme was illegal is enough. We know it was illegal. I don't think an apology that comes five years too late is enough. In that time, up to $1.5 billion has been unlawfully taken from the Australian people by their government. So we need an apology from the Prime Minister that is unqualified. His name was on the media release announcing this policy. We need him to say he is sorry and admit he was wrong.
Deputy Speaker, I'd like to pay tribute in this House to Peter Johnson, a much-loved member of the Blue Mountains community who died last month of mesothelioma. I first met Peter as principal at Winmalee Public School nearly 20 years ago. This was one of many teaching positions Peter held in schools since becoming a teacher in 1978, and he also served as principal of Faulconbridge Public School in my electorate. But in the time I knew Peter, most of his work was in senior leadership roles within the Department of Education and then, following his retirement, as an active community and Labor Party member. I can't speak today of all his interests—they were many—but I will single out two areas where his contributions were considerable.
After retiring, Peter joined the Lower Mountains Neighbourhood Centre, and it was no surprise that he soon became chair of that important local organisation. Under his leadership, the neighbourhood centre merged with others to become Belong Blue Mountains. Peter cared very much about the merged organisation as a way of better supporting the people across many of the mountains communities.
The other issue where I saw the full force of his passion was on Aboriginal education. As Angelo Gavrielatos, New South Wales Teachers Federation President, says, Peter was instrumental in the development of affirmative-action employment programs for Aboriginal teachers. Peter understood the importance of recruiting more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers for Australian schools. As he recently emailed me, the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers educating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children cannot be understated and is supported by a mountain of literature.
Peter led the evaluation of a successful program that was implemented under the previous Labor government, and abandoned by the current coalition government, which he found not only boosted the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers but was on track to help close the gap in preschool participation, educational attainment and aspiration to genuine employment prospects for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Peter wrote: 'If there was one legacy I would like to leave when I eventually take my final breath, it is that there will be bipartisan commitment to a similar program led by experienced and trusted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.' That was his wish, and I will work hard to make that wish come true. In between treatment for worsening health, amongst the jigsaw puzzles and the Lego constructions and the Eels memories, his last message to me ended with: 'I will keep tapping to support you and your colleagues and hopefully will live to see Prime Minister Albo sworn in.' My deepest sympathies to his wife, Janet, and his children, his grandchildren and his many other family members. His many friends and colleagues in the mountains and beyond are mourning his passing. We were better for knowing him and we are worse for his loss.
Across all the electorates represented in this place, we have wonderful community champions who do so much to make our communities wonderful places to live in, and the electorate of Forde is no different, with a truly terrific bunch of people who do an enormous amount of hard work. In this regard, I'd like to recognise the efforts of two very special constituents in Forde, Rachel Hunter and Gary Hollindale, who were recognised and acknowledged, quite rightly, in the Queen's Birthday honours. Rachel was awarded a Public Service Medal for outstanding public service to the community of Queensland, through a range of roles, and Gary was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the community of Beenleigh.
Gary is a born-and-bred Beenleigh local who I've had the great pleasure of working with over the years in his various roles, at the local Rotary club, the historical society and the men's shed, of which he was a founding committee member in 2016. His long years of service on many boards and community groups in and around the Beenleigh area have undoubtedly changed the lives of many and inspired many more to give back to the community in which we live.
Gary's long history of service to the community began way back in 1973, when he joined the Apex club of Beenleigh, where he was treasurer the following year. In 1986 Gary joined the Rotary club of Beenleigh, where he quickly rose up the ranks to become the president in 1990-91 and 2014-15. Gary also held many other leadership positions in Rotary over the years and continues to do so, currently serving as the effective services director. He served as secretary in 1994-95 and again in 2015-16. He was coordinator of the local high-school debating competition over nine years, the Rotary District 9630 district governor from 1997 to 2000, and chairperson of the Rotary health foundation and Rotaract for more than three years.
Gary's long list of achievements and community service doesn't stop there. In 2007 he became a justice of the peace, and in 2011 he joined the Beenleigh historical society and served as treasurer. During this time, he established a tourism centre, facilitated the Heck homestead relocation and refurbishment, heritage days, the re-enactment of the 100th anniversary of the Dungaree March through Beenleigh, with the RSL and local veterans, and the 150th anniversary of the settlement of Beenleigh and its surrounds.
In 2016 he became the founding committee member of the Beenleigh District Men's Shed after researching and lobbying to establish a new men's shed in the Beenleigh area. He is also an active member of Beenleigh RSL and Golf Club. Gary is a recipient of Rotary's Paul Harris Fellowship and a City of Logan Volunteers Award, in 2019, and a joint recipient of the Frank Lenz Memorial Award. Gary is a tireless worker in the Beenleigh community, and I am told that, throughout his over 40 years of service to the community, he has taken only one year off, and that was to get his pilot's licence, something he'd always wanted to achieve throughout his 20 years of service in the Royal Australian Air Force. I want to thank Gary and all those in Forde who volunteer, for their selfless contribution to our community.
The Public Service Medal recognises outstanding service by employees of governments across Australia and has a long history in Commonwealth nations. Rachel Hunter joints a long list of distinguished Australians who have served the community in their contribution to the public service. Rachel has dedicated over 35 years to the public service in Queensland, with a record of delivering leadership and innovation in Queensland Health; the Department of Education, Training and the Arts; the Department of Justice and Attorney-General; and the development of the Queensland Gallery of Modern Art. I want to congratulate and thank both Gary and Rachel for their service to our community, whether it's in volunteering or public service. Being nominated for these prestigious awards by your peers is a high honour indeed and a true reflection of your long-serving commitment to the community and the high regard in which you are held. Thank you to both Gary and Rachel for your service.
On 4 July, the voters of Eden-Monaro will have a by-election. As many members would be aware, the electorate surrounds the ACT. It is a diverse, rugged and beautiful part of Australia. Many of our lives are shared across the border, with crossovers for work, school and community sport. Until recently, the electorate was represented by the hardworking, well-respected Mike Kelly. Despite ongoing health issues, Mike stood up for his constituents time and time again on employment, climate change and, more recently, bushfire recovery.
Others have spoken of Mike's time in this chamber but I particularly respected his record on calling out the lack of fairness in the treatment of his electorate in relation to drought assistance and infrastructure delivery. He brought valuable experience and expertise to this parliament, with a distinguished record in service of his country. When I first came to work here in the Senate, he was one of the first to extend his hand of friendship, knowing that many of our constituents had shared challenges and dreams. I certainly benefited from his wisdom, support and mateship.
The electorate of Eden-Monaro has a proud history of having a strong local member who stands up on the issues and works effectively with local communities. Mike was certainly that, a worthy successor to the likes of Allan Fraser, Bob Whan and Jim Snow. The latest candidate for the by-election, Kristy McBain, certainly fits that mould. As Kristy has said a few times, if she was fortunate enough to be elected, she said she would literally have big shoes to fill.
Kristy spent her early career working in a Queanbeyan law firm and is now a mum and small business owner living in Bega. Kristy was the mayor of the Bega Valley shire when she led her community through the triple challenges of drought, the catastrophic bushfires and now the coronavirus pandemic. She is a strong local leader who understands just how tough many in her community are doing it. She is a local leader who knows how important investment and jobs are in her region. Kristy has been out early in this by-election campaign with the whole Labor team behind her working to meet these challenges.
Some in this House may have been following the by-election in the media and, unfortunately for the communities of Eden-Monaro, the coalition have not been so united behind a candidate. In fact, they have been quite the opposite. We have The Nationals' John Baralaro declaring he is not interested in state politics anymore and is ready to win Eden-Monaro. Despite this self-confidence, something the local member for Monaro is not short on, he still lashed out at anyone in his way. Before deciding he was out, he infamously attacked the member for Riverina and also attacked the current state member for Bega, Andrew Constance. Mr Constance took this pretty personally and—live to air—declared it was just not worth it and declared himself out of the race for Eden-Monaro as well. This whole self-indulgent approach has sent a poor message to many in Eden-Monaro.
After Senator Molan also declared himself out, the Liberal Party pre-selected Fiona Kotvojs, a climate change sceptic—I will let that sink in—as a candidate for an electorate that has the most to lose from climate change that has felt the effects probably more than any other over the last couple of years, who is sceptical on the science of climate change. At the end of the day, elections are about a choice, and the good people of Eden-Monaro have a choice between Kristy and an out-of-touch Prime Minister who admits we are in recession but who has no real plan to get the area out of it, a Prime Minister with an announcement a day but with no regional jobs plan. It is a choice between Kristy and a Treasurer who oversaw the greatest-ever budget bungle in history, a Treasurer who lets workers on the coast suffer without access to JobKeeper. And it is a choice between Kristy and a government that has overseen the robodebt debacle, given us the Ruby Princess shambles and has let people criminals steal peoples' superannuation. This is a government that has cut thousands of Public Service jobs, a government that thinks after the ABC played such a crucial role during the bushfires that it should be cut by another $84 million, a government that is now even coming after Australia's humble postie.
This compares to a vote for Kristy McBain, a local who understands what matters to families, to small business and to local communities. A vote for Kristy will be a vote for a person who has demonstrated time and time again that she will stand up in times of adversity and not go missing in action, a person who will ensure the constituents of Eden-Monaro will have their voices heard in this very chamber.
I'd like to take this opportunity to share with the House an update on a major infrastructure project in my electorate of Bonner: the Brisbane Metro. The Brisbane Metro is going to be a massive game changer for commuters, from university students to high schoolers to city workers. The new public transport system wouldn't have been possible without the $300 million funding from the Morrison government. The $944 million metro project will create 165 direct jobs during construction and 185 jobs once completed, something our region will greatly benefit from as we recover from the economic impact of the coronavirus epidemic.
With the new depot to be built at Rochedale and four stops in Bonner, this forward-planning project to be delivered by the Brisbane City Council will get residents home sooner and safer, with more travel options and less congestion on our major roads. In fact, one of the great features of the new metro is doing away with timetables. Forget the timetable! If you miss the metro, there's another one just three minutes away, ready to take you into the Brisbane CBD.
Can I also congratulate Councillor Ryan Murphy, who is now chair of public and active transport and has taken over the response ability for the Brisbane Metro project. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit the depot site on Schools Road at Rochedale with Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner. The depot will house the new fleet of 60 high-capacity metro vehicles. I'm very pleased to share with the House that world-leading vehicle manufacturer HESS, in partnership with Brisbane based supplier Volgren and electrical infrastructure experts ABB have been chosen to design and build the fleet.
So what makes the Brisbane Metro vehicles so unique? The metro vehicles will be an Australian first, using tried-and-tested European technology to help futureproof the city's public transport network. Each vehicle will have zero tailpipe emissions and be battery electric, with state-of-the-art flash-charging infrastructure. This means that, after completing a run, each vehicle will be able to be fully charged in under six minutes. Each vehicle will have the capacity to carry up to 150 passengers with a high level of accessibility, wi-fi and USB charging points. Rochedale, Upper Mt Gravatt, Griffith University and Holland Park—this not only is a win for commuters with reduced travel times but will help us bust congestion on the region's busy roads. I'm so pleased to be part of the government that jumped at the opportunity to fund this vital public transport infrastructure, and I acknowledge my good friend the member for Brisbane. He and I worked tirelessly to make sure that the Morrison government was able to fund that $300 million that was part of the Brisbane Metro.
With construction of the depot now underway, stage 1 will begin construction next year. Once completed, the Brisbane Metro will provide a 21-kilometre service, connecting 18 stations along dedicated busways. For those who travel into the city for concerts and footy games, this will provide a fast, reliable and environmentally friendly way to get to and from your event. The Brisbane Metro vehicle will also offer close to silent operation and provide a smooth, comfortable journey for passengers. From Eight Mile Plains to Roma Street to the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital to the University of Queensland, the Brisbane Metro will deliver the public transport our city has been crying out for, taking cars off our roads and connecting communities. Public transport is a vital part of building a 21st century capital city. In my electorate of Bonner, families, students and workers will be connected to the Brisbane Metro at four stops, and this is a great win for the electorate of Bonner.
I rise to speak about Aboriginal deaths in custody, and I will begin with the words of Senator Patrick Dodson from the other place:
So I ask you, sincerely, to make this a top priority. For too long there have been nice words and good intentions, but the lack of action and commitment has not seen a reduction in deaths in custody; it's seen an escalation in the social indicators that diminish First Nations people and diminish us as a nation … Now's the time to stop the rot of First Nations people dying in custody, being over-imprisoned and having their children put into out-of-home care.
These are the words of Senator Pat Dodson in response to the issue of Aboriginal deaths in custody. Senator Dodson was a member of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which 29 years ago made 339 recommendations to this parliament to reduce Aboriginal deaths in our jails and remand centres. As he explained in his speech, when the report was published in 1991, 99 Aboriginal people had died in custody. Since publication, a further 437 First Nations people have died. At least three of these deaths occurred in the last week. This is a national disgrace.
In the last week we have seen thousands of people around the country protesting around these issues. I understand why our citizens, the people we represent here, are angry. I understand why they have decided to march despite the health warnings. While there obviously are concerns, as we are dealing with a pandemic, I want to acknowledge that the people who went to those rallies were aware of those concerns but, such is the critical importance of this issue, they marched anyway. They should not be dismissed. Their representatives in this place and across the parliaments of this nation have failed not just our First Australians but all Australians who know this isn't right.
Of course I urge protesters to adhere to social-distancing measures. The pandemic is still a significant risk to the lives and health of Australians, and we all know that. If you want to understand why the Prime Minister is hypocritical to tell you not to protest google 'Scott Morrison it's a free country', and you'll find what the Prime Minister said about antilockdown protests at the height of this pandemic. He certainly didn't call on the police to arrest those protesters.
Here in Canberra, a community that cares deeply about social justice, we are represented by Senator Zed Seselja from the Liberal Party. Yesterday, after several TV appearances to condemn the protests, Senator Seselja sent out an email to his subscribers condemning the protests for 'undoing all the work done to flatten the curve and stop the spread'. Not once in his email did Senator Seselja mention what the protests were about. Not once did Senator Seselja mention that, despite making up three per cent of the population, 29 per cent of Australia's prison population is Aboriginal. Not once did he mention that the percentage of First Nations people in Australia's prisons has doubled since 1985, as research by our colleague the member for Fenner has found. Not once did he mention that one in five inmates in Canberra's jail are Aboriginal and that this had increased significantly since 2014. Nothing: Senator Seselja completely erased the protesters and what they are fighting for.
Australia has actively erased the histories, cultures and experience of our First Nations people. Senator Seselja did that in his email this week, and the Prime Minister did it yesterday when he said there was no slavery in Australia.
I am continually inspired by our First Nations leaders in the Labor caucus. I have already mentioned some of Senator Dodson's words. Senator Malarndirri McCarthy's words on Today were so eloquent, bringing mainstream breakfast news attention to the issues, and the member for Barton, Linda Burney, pushed through the hatred to say we need Closing the Gap targets to reduce incarceration of First Nations people and we need Closing the Gap targets that reduce removal of First Nations children from their parents at rates that outstrip the stolen generation. First Nations children remain 10 times more likely than other Australian children to be removed from their families, and this needs to change. The start would be to make it a Closing the Gap target, as Labor have called for. We also need to bring justice targets into the Closing the Gap— (Time expired)
I am angry—like many Australians, I am angry. I was angry on Monday and I'm still angry today. It's appropriate that I follow up from the previous speaker. Over the past week or so, tens of thousands of Australians have gathered in our streets to protest, as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. Four of them were from the Australian Labor Party. We know that what spurred that movement was the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. What happened to Mr Floyd was a disgrace. It was wrong. It was a crime. It is entirely unreasonable for police to treat a suspect in the manner in which they did, particularly whilst that person is restrained in handcuffs. As I said, I believe it was a crime and I hope that not only is justice done but that it is seen to be done.
The Australian protests were also raising awareness of Aboriginal deaths in custody. These are noble causes. One death in custody is a tragedy and one too many, whether it be an Indigenous or non-Indigenous person. But, sadly, we have seen too many Aboriginal deaths in custody. I have no issue with people wanting to voice their peaceful concerns, whether that be about the Australian or the US context, but just not now—not in the middle of a pandemic that has today seen nearly 7½ million cases and almost 420,000 deaths worldwide, and, sadly, those figures are continuing to rise. In my view, it is entirely unreasonable and selfish for those people to have demonstrated in our streets during a pandemic and not only placed themselves at risk but also their friends, families and co-workers. There is a time and a place for everything. This is neither the time nor the place to be holding mass demonstrations of 30,000 people in King George Square in Brisbane, or in Melbourne, or in Sydney or anywhere else.
One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system is that no one person is above the law. The law applies equally to all Australians, or, to put it in the vernacular, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Most of us understand this. The vast bulk of Australians have been doing the right thing for several months now. They've been doing their bit to help flatten the curve and defeat the coronavirus and we've been doing that so successfully. Millions of Australians have sacrificed a great deal for the greater good. We have in some cases shut down businesses and entire industries. Hundreds of thousands of people have joined the unemployment lines, supported by JobKeeper and JobSeeker. Businesses have failed and, sadly, more will fail in the weeks and months ahead. People have, with enormous anguish, not been able to say their goodbyes to loved ones who have passed. Weddings have been cancelled, long awaited holidays have been postponed or cancelled altogether. The tourism, retail and construction sectors, which are so important to the Sunshine Coast economy and many other economies throughout our country, are on their knees. By government edict, places of worship have been closed to the public. As a nation, we've found a new way to commemorate our most precious of days, Anzac Day.
The sacrifices borne by Australians over just the past three months have been great but those sacrifices may have been for nought because of the misguided actions of these protesters. I say misguided, not because of their beliefs, but because of the way they have trashed the sacrifices of millions of Australians who have worked so assiduously to do the right thing, at such great cost to the public purse. We learnt just yesterday that at least one of the protesters has tested positive for coronavirus. I hope and I pray that that is the only one. For those who are considering taking part in another demonstration over the next few days, I plead with you: please don't! Please respect your fellow Australians and the sacrifices that we have all made. Two wrongs don't make a right. Please do what is right for your fellow Australians.
House adjourned at 17:00
The impacts of COVID-19 have been many and varied. Of course, the most serious consequence has been the loss of life and the impacts on both the victims and their loved ones. Sadly, none of us have escaped; all of us have been touched. Hit hard have been our local small to medium-sized businesses, including our clubs, our pubs, our gymnasiums, our restaurants. The impact has been very considerable, and amongst them has been the demise of our local community newspapers.
In my electorate alone we've lost the Lakes Mail, the Cessnock Advertiser, The Singleton Argus, the Muswellbrook Chronicle and the Hunter Valley News. They are all very high-quality newspapers run by Australian Community Media, and are all essential services in our local communities. Thanks to them we know what's happening in the local council and its decision-making; we know what's happening in the local economy; we know who has achieved locally, whether it be in sporting or academic or cultural endeavours. Tragically, sadly, we learn who has passed. Certainly, a lot of older Australians still rely heavily on them. They don't have the access to social media platforms that so many of us have, and they rely heavily on the advice of our local newspapers. Businesses still rely on our papers; they undertake their advertising and marketing in them. So they are a very, very great loss.
Our local newspapers also create jobs, and have been a training ground for so many high-quality journalists who have made their way to the national stage. Sadly, though, our local papers were under threat before COVID-19, long before then, because while we should never push back against technology, technology has allowed the big international global players, like Google and Facebook, to in effect steal their local content without paying anything for that service. And, sadly, the government has let these newspaper organisations down by not moving more quickly to help them combat these changes in our society. Let's hope that our local community newspapers, which are operating online of course, are able to revive themselves post-COVID-19.
Another important debate post-COVID-19 will be the energy debate—more important than ever—and I welcome the fact that in New South Wales Santos's Narrabri gas project looks very, very close to approval. It's been about 10 years in the making. This will bring great benefits to the Hunter because it will enable a pipeline to come through our region, supplying new energy, cheaper energy, and creating jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector.
I rise today to bring attention to the impacts of C-19 on my electorate of Flynn, and my condolences go to those who have lost their lives throughout this pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has unfortunately claimed many small businesses in my electorate of Flynn. For some it will be hard to bounce back, if they can bounce back at all.
It is not all bad news: some companies have flourished through these last three months. In Flynn, these industries kept ticking over as normal. The coal industry did very well. Gladstone's port kept on operating and had record tonnages. Rio Tinto's three sites, Cement Australia, power stations and some of the big industries all did very well. Tradies kept working. Essential services—the police, the fireys—all did a great job. Centrelink did a great job in handling their number of inquiries. And for the country folk, it was situation normal for them. Bunnings, Woolworths, Coles, IGAs: all showed high trading figures similar to a large Christmas period. Sales in our local bike shops skyrocketed, as did sales in our sporting shops. People needed equipment because gyms were not available to them, so they had to seek other methods of exercising.
On the other hand, businesses like hotels, motels, coffee shops, restaurants, gyms, cinemas and retail shops suffered terribly, and it is with these businesses that my concerns lie. The closure of markets have left local small-crop farmers in the lurch. I spoke to a citrus grower in Mundubbera, and his coldrooms were full of lemons. He expected a full season for his lemons. The crop was good. The season was great. However, he had no-one to buy his lemons because the restaurant trade and the pub trade just died. I spoke to a lettuce producer who had to plough his crop back into the ground. Food banks are doing an amazing job providing food parcels to the vulnerable, and I've got to congratulate them for their efforts. So, a shout-out to all of my constituents in Flynn. Together, we'll get through this. God bless you all. Thank you.
This week I've been speaking in this chamber, and the main chamber, about the Northern Territory and how proud I am of their response to COVID-19 and doing the right thing, which is now allowing us to open back up. I've spoken about the need for federal investment in our industries. I've spoken about the cattle trade, I've spoken about our agricultural output, and how that can be greatly improved with some attention from the federal government. I've also spoken about defence industry support for my electorate in Darwin.
I am always absolutely amazed by the strength of the people of the Top End in peace time, and I always take the opportunity to reflect on their strength during wartime. In 1942, Darwin was significantly bombed, as most of you would know. On that same evening the island of East Timor, or Timor-Leste, was invaded by the Japanese. Bands of Australian commandos took to the hills. They fought on throughout that year.
Then, later that year, in December, they were being resupplied and were evacuating the wounded by ships, like the HMAS Armidale. When the HMAS Armidalewas struck by the Japanese, it started sinking. A young Tasmanian man jumped from the safety, or potential safety, of the life raft, back on to the Armidale, and started taking down the Japanese that were killing his mates in the water. I don't understand why the Prime Minister of Australia has decided that Teddy Sheean's bravery was not enough—an 18-year-old young man's bravery, giving his life for his mates in the water.
The Prime Minister seems to think we're going to use more taxpayers' funds and bring in an eminent Australian like Dr Brendan Nelson to try and cover up his failures, to try and give him a bit of a workaround. I think it's unnecessary. The unanimous decision of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, which has always been followed by the government of the day, was that Teddy Sheean should have a Victoria Cross, but the Prime Minister thinks he needs to have a review into that decision. I don't understand why that is required.
But I've got some new information for the Prime Minister. He seems to need new information. I spoke to a guy called Ray Leonard, the last remaining survivor of the HMAS Armidale. Ray, who is 95 and has just had his 76th wedding anniversary with his wife, Beryl, said to me, 'I am disappointed and Teddy Sheean deserves a VC. (Time expired)
Each year in this House, we have a Closing the Gap statement. It shows that the life expectancy of Indigenous Australians is lower than the rest of the community. It shows that child mortality is higher. It shows educational outcomes are lower. It shows employment outcomes are lower. We still have a lot to do in our society to close that gap, and I am sure that everyone here in this parliament shares that sentiment. But what's been disappointing in the debate over the last couple of weeks is what we saw put to air on the ABC on Monday night, when they allowed to be broadcast to air, unchallenged, the accusation that 400 Indigenous Australians had been murdered—the word 'murdered' was used—by police in custody. This breeds division in our society. It breeds a culture of victimhood, which is totally the opposite thing that we need to do in this society if we want to close the gap.
The truth is that the percentage of Indigenous Australians dying in custody is actually 22 per cent less than non-Indigenous Australians. This is a fact that should be broadcast across every media outlet in the country. But, instead, we are hearing the exact opposite time after time after time. We must tell the truth about what is happening. Indigenous Australians are dying at a lower rate in our jails than non-Indigenous Australians. It is true that Indigenous Australians are incarcerated, but we must tell the truth about deaths in custody. Otherwise, we will not help close the gap. In fact, the royal commission back in 1991 said:
… the immediate causes of the deaths do not include foul play, in the sense of unlawful, deliberate killing of Aboriginal prisoners by police and prison officers. More than one-third of the deaths (37) were from disease; 30 were self-inflicted hangings; 23 were caused by other forms of external trauma, especially head injuries; and 9 were immediately associated with dangerous alcohol and other drug use. Indeed, heavy alcohol use was involved in some way in deaths in each of these categories.
It is important that we tell the truth, because we are seeing a lack of respect for police. We are seeing 2,500 New South Wales police officers injured in the line of duty. We must simply tell the truth, support our police where we can, and make sure that we do actually close the gap. (Time expired)
On the eve of the 2013 federal election, Tony Abbott, who was then the leader, said there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS under a coalition government. The ABC has lost $783 million in funding since the coalition came to power that year, including the $84 million cut in 2018, when the current Prime Minister was Treasurer. My mother and my grandmum both worked at the ABC in Adelaide—and I remember taking the long bus ride after school out to Collinswood—which was then a bustling workplace. But this government's cuts have led to round after round of job cuts at our ABC and fewer local services for South Australians. There is now no ABC television production in South Australia. The Stateline program was cut; newsroom jobs were slashed; radio bulletins decreased; the sound library, with its extensive taxpayer funded music collection, was closed and its collection simply given away; the state editor role was cut; and there aren't even receptionists to answer a phone call at the Adelaide office—calls now go through Sydney.
All of these cuts not only mean that young South Australians hoping to enter journalism as a career face a bigger hurdle; they also mean that South Australians don't have the local news, the local television and the local radio services that they deserve. South Australians have contacted me horrified over the cuts to their ABC. Helen, a resident of a local nursing home in Woodville, told me, 'I find that in the current difficult times, the ABC programing and coverage has helped me so much to keep going happily, despite isolation and the sadness of the bushfires.' Kerrie, from Henley Beach, told me that she values that the ABC truly reflect our country's rich variety of Indigenous, multicultural and diverse people.
The media industry has been hit hard over the last few years, especially during the current pandemic, and many outlets have closed. That makes the ABC all the more valuable to Australians, especially those living outside the big eastern state capitals. The ABC is our national carrier. It belongs to every Australian, regardless of where they live. South Australians deserve a comprehensive local and properly funded ABC, and they're not getting it from this government.
As rallies around the country coalesce again this weekend, mainstream Australians are just horrified that we would throw COVID-19 arrangements into the fireplace and ignore them completely. But that appears to be what's happening. We know that the more public officials claim we shouldn't be rallying, the more it will simply encourage people to attend. Clearly, we need a much stronger signal. There are public health directions in place that we should be adhering to. It doesn't mean that we don't support the causes for which these people are congregating, but the message is clear: Australia's done the right thing. We've led the world in our COVID-19 response. At the cusp of being able to relax, assembling in large numbers, particularly if we're barracking or screaming, is probably one of the most dangerous things we can do, particularly when surrounded by complete strangers who aren't from our own immediate family or family unit. We've worked so hard to quarantine vulnerable populations that to have rallies based around these populations is absolutely crazy. For that reason, I am calling for the nation to contemplate that breaking public health directives is so serious that a penalty equal to the JobKeeper and jobseeker payments should be levied on those who rally and defy the police. You have to have a very clear signal here. While the federal government won't be making these penalties come into effect, state judiciaries will. They are completely independent of politics, but it's completely reasonable to say to the general public, to those considering attending a rally, particularly because every group will have a cohort that do take public payments: if you're specifically in receipt of a COVID-19 payment on the one hand but willing to risk the health of innocent taxpayers on the other then there should be some price to pay. I'm encouraging those attending to remember one thing: many will have had thousands of dollars a month in support—COVID-19 payments paid and funded by taxpayers—on the simple understanding that one does one's best and sticks to public health directions. In Queensland, there are very clear signals of 100 penalty units for defying that. It's up to $13,000. While the judiciary will independently make these calls, police have made it very clear and stated that they will enforce these laws.
I need to make it super clear: if you are turning up to a rally this weekend, the penalties may well be that large. If they were, I think the average Australian would say that's a completely reasonable assessment, because we have been in receipt of public moneys to support the way through COVID-19, only to have some spit in the face of the taxpayer and engage in conduct which, by all public and international evidence, is highly unsafe, with separations of up to seven metres required where people are barracking, screaming or singing. I urge organisers to find a better location to engage in a rally, where distancing is preserved, because otherwise financial penalties are the only way that protesters will listen.
As at 3 June 2020, data shows that the fires and the initial impacts of the global pandemic have accelerated longstanding economic challenges under the Liberals. It's a litany of bad news, and it shows how out of touch the Prime Minister is to think that somehow our economy is just going to snap back to the way things were before or that he can just turn off the tap without damaging the economy further. To generate the revenue needed to pay for government services, Australia needs a growing economy. To create jobs in the recovery, Australia will need the economy to get stronger. Growth was already sluggish before the fires and the virus. It has been well below trend every quarter under the current Prime Minister and Treasurer. There was a slowdown last quarter, and now quarterly growth is negative for the first time since the 2011 Queensland floods. Annual growth has declined to 1.4 per cent, the weakest annual growth rate since 2000. Consumption growth went backwards by 1.1 per cent in the quarter and is down by 0.2 per cent over the year, the biggest annual fall in nearly 60 years. Business investment continues to go backwards and is down 2.9 per cent over the year. The official unemployment rate is up to 6.2 per cent, but even that terrible number doesn't tell the whole story. Half a million Australians dropped out of the labour market altogether. They just gave up on work. They're not counted in the unemployment figures, nor are those people who lost hours or didn't have enough hours of work to start with, because the official rate counts you as employed even if you only get an hour a week.
Too many Australians are being left behind by the Morrison government, and to claim that there'll be some sort of snapback is insulting to everyone who's lost a job, everyone who's lost hours, and everyone who's just facing an uncertain future. Australians need a government that understands the economy, a government that understands that the budget must be managed in a way that serves the economy, not the other way around. The government should listen to the Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, who recently told a Senate committee:
There are certain risks if we withdraw that support too early. I know, from the Reserve Bank's perspective, we're going to keep the monetary support going for a long period of time, and I'm hopeful that the fiscal support will be there for a long period of time.
The government should carefully consider this week's OECD report, which encourages the government to direct fiscal support towards a focus on improving resilience and social and physical infrastructure, including social housing. If the tap is turned off too soon, the risks include a longer and deeper downturn and a slower recovery from this shock than would otherwise occur. A slower recovery means fewer jobs and more people in the unemployment queues, and it means weaker government revenues, making it harder to fund ordinary government services. Cutting the fiscal support when the economy is going through this massive shock would put more pressure on the Commonwealth budget, not less. The government needs to govern for all Australians, protect jobs and stand up for a stronger future.
2020 has been a tough year for many Australians, and it's been a particularly tough one for year 12s. Over the last couple of weeks, I've held Zoom calls with groups of year 12 students from schools across the electorate to talk to them directly. I wanted to hear from students to get a sense of how they're coping with this year, and ask if there's a way that we in the government could adequately acknowledge what they're going through. For many year 12s, the interruptions to their major work or the inability to catch up with a teacher after class for five minutes to chat about a topic they were finding difficult, or the sense of isolation from peers, have been challenging over the last few months. Others felt the disappointment of missing out on those bittersweet memories—a last athletics carnival or the year 12 revue—that are special about the last year of school. One student told me, 'You don't realise what you've got till it's gone.' I think that sentiment resonates with many of us at this time. There are, however, lots of great things that have come out of this year for students. Many feel they've built a greater sense of resilience and they've adapted quickly to online learning, learnt new technical skills and worked out how to communicate well with teachers and classmates online. Both students and their parents have developed a greater understanding and appreciation of what teachers do, and that's something I've heard across the board. This time has also built a greater sense in students of what it means to contribute to the community we live in. One student told me about how she and her parents purchased groceries for their elderly neighbour who couldn't go to the shops, while others reflected on the experience of the Anzac Day dawn service and the significance of standing with their neighbours to commemorate this important milestone in Australia's history. I also used the opportunity to understand more about the views and attitudes of young people generally. A lot of young people don't keep up with daily news but would like more opportunities to be better engaged and have a voice on issues that concern them. It's clear we have to find a better way of reaching our next voters.
One thing the group felt important to share with parliamentarians was that an education system whose only focus is the ATAR has the wrong set of values. Striving for a high ATAR often determines the subjects students undertake, prioritising potential marks over the development of passions such as drama or art. ATARs don't reflect their educational improvement, personal growth or contribution to the school and wider community. I think they're right. As more universities have early and alternative entry schemes, I think the ATAR is collapsing.
Despite the challenges experienced this year, many students have a renewed determination to work hard, and they feel grateful for being back in the classroom as schools have resumed on a normal basis. I think a lot has been asked of year 12s this year, as it has of all school students and their teachers and parents. I want to acknowledge their sense of loss as well as their anxieties about what the next six months may bring, but I also want to say to all the year 12s in my electorate: you can do it, and you'll have a unique story to tell about the experience of your final year, as you are the class of 2020, the class of COVID.
This pandemic has taught us many, many things. Perhaps one of the most important lessons it's taught us is who the essential workers are, the people in our society who keep us going and allow us to do all the things that make this country so wonderful. The essential workers have of course been our healthcare workers—our doctors, nurses, cleaners and all of the people in our healthcare services, who have done a brilliant job. They have also been our mental health workers—people who have answered the phone and been there to support people through really difficult times. They have been the cleaners who have every day turned up for work, making sure things are sanitised in our schools, offices and streets. They are among all of the people who have stepped up. Our supermarket and retail workers have done an outstanding job, a stoic job. Through some of the most difficult days of this pandemic, when tensions and panic swept across the country, it was our supermarket workers who kept turning up to make sure there was enough food and there were enough supplies for Australians to survive on.
But today I want to acknowledge another group of people who throughout this pandemic have done something truly extraordinary, and that group is our teachers. Our teachers in this country were thrown the most difficult curve ball of all for any educator—that is, their students were taken from in front of them and put behind a screen. I spent a bit of time throughout university working in a classroom as a teacher's aide, and one of the first things I learnt was that with 21 students in the classroom there are 21 different lessons going on. Great teachers run 21 different lessons to cater for each individual student, as did the teacher I worked with and as have many of the teachers locally. So today I want to acknowledge them. I want to say thank you for all their efforts. Many of them have had to stay up extremely late on many nights planning different lessons to engage with students and parents. I also want to thank our school leaders, who have supported their teachers and other staff throughout really difficult times.
We're seeing, even today, that this is going to be a bumpy ride, with schools still closing down with cases of coronavirus and still being presented with challenges they're going to have to confront throughout this pandemic. Teachers are rightly nervous, and we need to make sure that we stand by them and thank them for their efforts and support them in their extremely important work.
I've been dropping in to the schools in my electorate to touch base with principals, just at the front gate, and with teachers, just to drop off a small thankyou, and I want also to pay tribute to Peter Martin, the former principal of Port Melbourne Primary, who served our local community for many, many years.
Hear, hear!
As the member for Bruce enthusiastically interjects, he was a fantastic principal, as are all of the principals and all of the teachers. We say: thank you very much for your efforts, and thank you on behalf of our students.
I echo the comments of the member for Macnamara in thanking teachers for the job they've done through this difficult time. I don't know Principal Peter Martin but I'm sure he's a fine teacher, as are many in his profession.
The last few months have been challenging for all of us. Our lives and livelihoods have been turned upside down. During these difficult periods it's very easy to forget that there are millions of Australians out there every day who, through their own ingenuity and resourcefulness, are making the best of a bad situation, and I want to highlight one of those in particular today: Kids Giving Back, a not-for-profit that operates in my electorate of Wentworth.
Under normal circumstances, Kids Giving Back organises meaningful volunteering opportunities for children between the ages of six and 18, but when COVID-19 broke out and social distancing restrictions were put in place Kids Giving Back, like many similar organisations, faced some difficult choices. As the CEO, Robyn Monro Miller, wrote to me: 'Kids Giving Back was faced with standing down staff during the COVID-19 shutdown. We could no longer offer face-to-face programs and there was no additional income to justify maintaining some staff positions.' Kids Giving Back was looking at standing down all five of its staff, in fact, but the introduction of JobKeeper changed all that. As Robyn, the CEO, wrote to me, 'As a result of JobKeeper being implemented, we were able to keep on all five staff in their roles and undertake a successful pivot to produce online sessions and generate some new volunteering initiatives.' Like it has for many organisations, JobKeeper provided the lifeline and safety net that this particular not-for-profit needed to continue to operate.
Kids Giving Back believe in having a triple impact. Their programs support the children involved, the vulnerable groups they work with and the community at large through the promotion of social cohesion. As a result of JobKeeper, Kids Giving Back launched a new initiative called 'Care to Give'. Under Care to Give, to date 121 families and their children, some 250 people in total, have helped prepare and distribute 230 care packs to deliver to vulnerable people in the area. The children involved also contributed cards and letters, building rich and valuable connections. The recipients of the care packs were thrilled to receive them. As the CEO, Robyn Monro Miller, told me: 'This was all possible because of JobKeeper. I hope you know how much we have appreciated the support of the government at this time.'
I want to congratulate Robyn Monro Miller, Nadine Ben-Mayor, Andi Smith, Thomas Skinner and Carole Schlessinger for their persistence and willingness to continue their great work in such trying circumstances. I also want to commend the hundreds of volunteers who have made this initiative so successful and the thousands of volunteers across Australia who've demonstrated similar resourcefulness during these difficult times. It's encouraging to see that throughout this crisis the community spirit that exists in our country has continued to thrive.
My electorate of Macarthur is one of the most rapidly growing electorates in Australia. However, we are being starved of the necessary support that would allow Macarthur to flourish by the economic gerrymander of the state and federal Liberal-National Party governments. There are the sports rorts, the arts rorts and the lack of decent public facilities. In particular, there's a lack of public transport infrastructure, which means that Macarthur residents travel far too long to find work, have less opportunity to spend quality time with their family and, when they do have time, they lack the local resources to enjoy their time. Time and again, I've written to the government requesting funding for local infrastructure only to be ignored. Western Sydney airport is to the north of Macarthur and we are being denied a rail link, while Liberal electorates to the north of the airport are being given money by the state and federal governments for a very expensive rail line. State and federal governments continue with their pork-barrelling and fail to support Macarthur. At the same time, they're pushing housing developments by huge development companies without providing local infrastructure.
The government would do well to finally provide the funding I've been asking for to enable the Shepherd Centre to open a new centre of excellence in Macarthur for children with severe hearing impairment. The government ought to provide funding for some of our local sporting fields for essential upgrades. Instead, they are leaving sporting clubs, such as the Minto Stingers and the Eagle Vale St Andrews Junior Rugby League Football Club, in the dark. The government could have got their act together long ago and ensured the promised funding for Appin Road came through. However, they haven't and Appin Road remains a very dangerous road. The government could provide funding to our beloved arts centre. They missed out on a grant from the arts council this year and are already struggling because of the pandemic. The government could provide a rail link for Macarthur to the new airport. Infrastructure Australia believe it's necessary, as do all of the experts. Instead, the government downright refuse to commit to this vital project and only focus on the northern link to St Marys and doing half a job.
I've raised these concerns many times and will continue to do so. My community is growing exponentially. The state and federal Liberal-National governments are aware of this and are allowing almost uncapped development to take place without infrastructure. Macarthur faces overdevelopment with the coalition government downright refusing to invest in essential services and projects in infrastructure for its residents. Investment in Macarthur is desperately required if South-West Sydney is to recover economically from COVID-19. Far too many homes, local businesses and families are at risk of going under. One only has to look at mortgage stress statistics to see that Macarthur has the highest mortgage stress statistics in New South Wales. It's time the Prime Minister came to the table and began governing in the interests of all Australians, not just some Australians. Stop hoarding all the money for Liberal electorates. There are taxpayers in Macarthur too.
I want to thank and acknowledge everyone in my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia for their efforts in keeping each other and other Australians safe during the coronavirus, making the sacrifices they've had to make throughout this. I am going to single out a couple of groups in particular. The health workers have done an extraordinary job and were basically on the frontline from day one, not necessarily knowing what they were dealing with. I also want to thank the cleaners for their pride and their diligence. The cleanliness and the disinfection process in the facilities has been extraordinary. They've been so focused on making sure that we stay safe. They've done a fantastic job. I also want to talk about our farmers. There was a great focus on what was and wasn't in a supermarket. We were still milking cows, producing beef and getting on with our job. I want to thank every farmer for just getting on with the job and making sure, as we always do, that no Australian doesn't have access to some of the best quality food in the world. But along with that is the transport sector. I want to acknowledge the Australian Trucking Association and the rural livestock transporters who were working day and night. There were the drivers and the operators and the logistics of keeping basic groceries on the shelves for all of us as much as they possibly could. It was a massive effort but an unseen effort. They were out there doing this job. I really commend every operator and truck driver that was out there in that space.
In our small regional communities, there were shortages of key items in local stores. I had a quiet chat to them. They were actually making sure that the more senior citizens in our community still had access to the core things they needed by making sure they quietly retained little amounts for anyone who came in and needed just the basics each week and only bought small amounts. They looked after many of our senior citizens in this way. It was a very compassionate way that a community can work together. I saw it over and over. The local stores were in contact with the Home and Community Care people and said, 'When you've got someone who really needs some supplies, let us know, because we'll make sure that they get them.' We saw that repeatedly, with the community working together to make sure everyone was looked after. One gentleman made sure he delivered, would you believe, toilet rolls free to certain people in Nannup who couldn't get them in their local store. He bought them at a shop and delivered them. That's our great Australian people looking after each other.
I want to start my contribution today by echoing the words of the Speaker at the start of parliament and acknowledge the First Peoples of this nation. I extend that to the people of the Dharawal nation in my region. On our TVs and across social media, the words 'I can't breathe' and the video footage of an African American man held down on the street by a police officer, calling out for his mother and saying he can't breathe, have reverberated around the world. In our country, it brought back memories of David Dungay Jr, from the Kempsey area, who was three weeks away from release from Long Bay prison and was subject to restraint that caused him to cry out, 12 times, 'I can't breathe.'
People should not die in police or prison custody, which is why there are investigations when this happens. The reality is that far too many Indigenous Australians do die—over 430 since the royal commission into black deaths in custody in 1991. As in America, there is no justice provided for these deaths. This is why people are angry and despairing. This is why we must come together, listen to our Indigenous people and take action.
I encourage people to look at the powerful contribution by Senator Patrick Dodson in the Senate this week. Patrick, of course, was the Indigenous commissioner on the royal commission. He calls us all to action on this shameful part of our history and our present, so we can eradicate it from our future. I ask everyone to find kindness, respect and compassion for our own Australians, our Indigenous Australians, who are not experiencing anything like equality in our country: not equal treatment or outcomes in the justice system, or in education, health, employment, housing. Since the Closing The Gap commitment, we have made far too little progress, if any, on too many of these matters.
I call on the Prime Minister to resist the lure of populism that might encourage people to find ways and words that divide us, and instead to lead, to listen to our Indigenous Australians, to engage the whole nation in committing to and taking action, and to lead us to a healing. The Prime Minister has said the subject of the protests is a legitimate one, and he is better placed than anyone to provide the leadership that is needed. I was disappointed by his comments yesterday questioning the motives and making comments about slavery in Australia. I hope that from today he steps up and provides the leadership that we need in the cause of unity and action on behalf of all Australians, and particularly our First Australians.
One Australian woman is killed every nine days by an intimate partner. Many more live their lives in fear of not just physical abuse, but of manipulative and controlling behaviour. The problem seems wicked and unsurmountable. Perhaps the answer lies in the old adage: 'How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.' You can't achieve something complex all at once, but small actions consistently applied can achieve positive progress. Last year I received a letter from Alison James. Alison had fled with her three daughters from her husband, who was the subject of an interim family violence order for almost a year and then a subsequent 6-month court order not to enter the family home. Presented to the court in support of the family violence order was evidence of her husband tracking her phone calls. Yet the landline in the family home remained in her husband's name, and Alison was unable to have it disconnected, despite appealing to the ombudsman. To add insult to injury, Alison then received a letter from the Child Support Agency deducting the cost of the telephone service from her child support payments, effectively forcing Alison to pay for a phone service she was too scared to use.
I wrote to Minister Fletcher, and I thank him for his thoughtful and proactive response. He put Alison in touch with a contact at Telstra, Mark Brown, who was able to resolve the immediate issue. I was very pleased to receive a letter from Alison recently with some heartening news but also a reminder that we still have so much work to do. Alison wrote: 'The positive outcome was that some six months later Mr Brown contacted me to advise that as a result of our communications Telstra has rolled out nationwide changes addressing family violence situations and in Tasmania has allocated a dedicated service person. My family and I have now moved into our own home, having had to give up the legal fight to stay in the family home simply because of the financial ability to employ legal representation. We are safe and settled and I'm now able to be a voice for change.'
Alison mentions areas needing reform as child support, firearms, insurance, Family Court and fair settlement and child protection. She says there is much to change, but, as with the Telstra battle, one issue at a time making incremental changes seems reasonable. To Alison I say, I am in awe of your courage and your resolve to drive change. I stand with you and I will walk with you, one step at a time.
I welcome the decision by ministers Payne and Ruston to refer a new inquiry into domestic violence to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to sit on that inquiry as a supplementary member. I am hopeful that this new approach will provide an opportunity to hear the voices of survivors such as Alison, so we can tackle this together one bite at a time.
I acknowledge the contribution just then by the member for Bass, which was a very affecting one, and I associate myself with her remarks.
La Trobe University is a critical institution in Melbourne's north. It is the university of the northern suburbs. Its vision for a future that is more closely connected to community and business across the north is something which I've been very excited about and deeply engaged in. It is a plan not just to continue to transform individual lives through the power of world-class tertiary education, but to reshape a regional economy. The university's impact is not just about Melbourne's north. It touches Bendigo, Wodonga, Shepparton and Mildura through campuses that are critical to those communities. And the significance is deeper: I think about the world-class research that is conducted at La Trobe University across a range of disciplines every day.
My engagement with that university community is very important to me, as it is to my colleagues the member for Jagajaga and the member for Cooper. Our electorates abut the Bundoora campus. I've been engaging deeply with the Vice-Chancellor, John Dewar, and his administration, staff and students, and the unions representing both as well, as the university grapples with extraordinary challenges—extraordinary challenges today and deeper challenges into the future.
I am devastated, on behalf of the communities I represent and the university community more broadly, by the fact that the Morrison Government has turned its back on students at Australian universities, putting at risk 21,000 jobs and so much more than 21,000 jobs. I am particularly devastated by the decisions which have treated La Trobe University with contempt. I think about the continuing moving of the goalposts with the sole intent to deny JobKeeper to save jobs at La Trobe University. Of course this neglect is nothing new. We have seen no policy certainty when it comes to higher education throughout the life of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. That makes it galling that the Liberals seek to blame universities for problems not of their making, when Minister Tehan should be taking responsibility.
I am proud that the petition I have organised to save jobs at La Trobe has had nearly 1,000 signatures already. I am so proud that the community is standing by jobs at La Trobe and that the university and the broader community is also standing by the international students who have been cruelly abandoned by this government. This is something that stands as a great indictment. A good society and a wealthy society such as ours should not be letting people starve.
Next year will be even more challenging for the university, which is why Minister Tehan cannot keep ignoring La Trobe University, nor can the members for Nicholls and Mallee. I ask them to join me and my Labor colleagues in standing up for La Trobe University.
Environmental stewardship is an unending commitment to preserve the earth and our beautiful conservation environment for future generations. The idea of stewardship is a foundation of liberalism itself, that we hand to future generations what we have inherited in a better state, whether it be a united society, a prosperous economy or a healthy environment. And, of course, we pride ourselves on our environment in this wonderful country. Australia has some of the most unique biodiversities and environments of all the countries across the planet. And, of course, we take pride every day in how we treat it responsibly. Everybody is encouraged to use land sustainably, and communities are encouraged to steward the environment at a grassroots level.
In the wonderful electorate of Goldstein, we have wonderful parks, golf courses and the most incredible nature reserves, which are the beaches along Port Phillip, including marine parks. So that's why Clean Up Australia Day—I know it was a while ago, but because of COVID-19 we haven't been able to talk about it—inspires so many local residents to do the right thing by our local environment. We take pride in our beaches. We take pride in our parks. We take pride in our community, because we care for it. That's why, on 1 March, in Beaumaris, I joined with many others across Australia to care for our local communities and our local environments, and 17.7 million people have done it over last 30 years. That's 35 million hours of volunteer work. That's over 365,000 ute loads of rubbish that have been scooped up. What began as a backyard project has now become the nation's largest community based environment event, and it's an opportunity for everybody to participate.
Clean Up Australia Day was founded by Ian Kiernan, who took the initiative to tackle pollution at the local level with the support of his mates, including co-founder Kim McKay AO. When Ian passed away in 2018, his vision for environmental localism got stronger and continues to be so. That's why I'm proud to be part of this important community event.
In Beaumaris, we went down to the beach around wreckage point to make sure that it was clean from plastics, particularly a lot of microplastics, which were in the surrounding areas and shrubbery, and making sure the sand was clean as well. Last year, we did the same thing down at Hampton Beach, and it was slightly disturbing, frankly, to find the amount of pollution and plastics that were found between the rocks on the beach which obviously were slowly breaking down. It took local initiative and local effort to fix it up. Every day and every week, beach patrols across our community live out those values by taking care of our local environment, but we all share that responsibility on Clean Up Australia Day.
My grandfather worked for the Postmaster-General's office and Australia Post for 48 years. When he finished his career, he was the postmaster at Mascot in our community. He was a life member and NSW branch secretary of his union, the Australian Postmasters Association, and a proud postie, who worked his whole working life for the Australia Post all over NSW. My grandfather would be rolling in his grave if he heard what this government is trying to do to Australia Post and its hardworking staff.
Australia Post is being undermined, coast to coast. The Morrison government's proposed regulations for this vital national institution means that Australia Post can essentially scale back services, slash jobs and cut wages, and it's not on. It's a cheap shot on workers and a reduction in an important service for our community. The changes will leave the jobs of up to one in four posties in limbo as well as many other indirect jobs, and it could mean that Australians will have to wait even longer for their mail through this alternating delivery model. People in regional areas already wait longer than those in cities for their mail, and these changes will push out those wait times even further.
Australia Post is an essential service that is part of our lives on an ongoing basis, particularly for older Australians who rely heavily on the postal service, yet this government has given no consideration to those in our community who aren't using new technology as much as others. These regulations will undermine an important part of the fabric of our society, and, of course, there was no consultation on these massive changes before they were announced and there was no opportunity to examine their merits. The government claims that these regulations are a temporary response to COVID-19, but they've given no guarantees that the changes won't be made permanent after coronavirus passes. If Australia Post and the Morrison government wanted to make the case for change, they should have fronted up and given an honest account of their plans. Instead, they've chosen to hide behind COVID-19 in the hope that no-one would notice temporary changes and the workforce impact would become irreversible after July 2021.
They say that it's all about increasing consumer demand for parcel deliveries, but the parcel boom is an opportunity to preserve and create jobs—not cut them. What is this government doing? If parcels are booming, then why are Australia Post talking about redundancies for their workforce? It simply does not make sense. Labor will move to disallow this regulation in the Senate. We believe we should have better postal services in Australia, not cuts to jobs and not cuts to Australia's postal services.
Last month I had the absolute delight of hosting the Biggest Morning Tea on Thursday 28 May at my office in Clontarf to raise funds for the Australian Cancer Council. Australia's Biggest Morning Tea is a community that raises funds and makes a big difference to those impacted by cancer, and we all have people that we know, family or friends, who have been impacted by cancer. My grandfather passed from cancer. It was a great day, especially at a time like this, during restrictions that were in full force during May. Because of the restrictions we decided to theme the event as a takeaway morning tea, where locals were invited to join me for a quick five-minute socially distanced chat and grab a coffee and something to eat. There was a great turnout from local people, and I want to thank our local businesses for coming on board to support the Cancer Council and support the community morning tea.
Banjo's Redcliffe donated some of the morning tea, some of the pastries, so please get down and support Banjo's Redcliffe. Also a lovely local woman is starting her own business. The name of that business is Von Beggs Pies. These are all homemade pies which were donated for the morning tea. I want to thank Citipointe Church and Citipointe Care, their care arm, at Redcliffe, who hosted the takeaway coffee cart and provided all the coffee and the service of four young people who came down to serve at the morning tea, all at no charge, to help raise funds for the Cancer Council. The Biggest Morning Tea was very well received, and the local people that attended were generous. Thank you for that. We raised $931.50 just through donations on the day.
It's a great addition to the measures that the Government has put in place to help Australians that are going through cancer or suffering with this horrible disease. There was an announcement recently by the honourable Greg Hunt for some $13.6 million to support 10 clinical trials to find innovative cancer treatments for melanoma, reproductive cancers and childhood brain cancer. Expanded medicines listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from 1 June to help people with multiple types of cancer also include multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer that develops from plasma cells in the bone marrow. This listing alone is estimated to help ease the cost of living for more than 2,300 Australians every year. The Morrison Government also invested $400 million in world-leading research to improve the lives of all Australians, with $87.1 million for cancer research.
It was a brilliant day. Thank you to all the researchers for what you do in helping Australians.
With restrictions starting to ease across New South Wales, I have been delighted to visit businesses up and down the South Coast again. Last week, I started with a coffee and a catch-up with the regulars at Blu Tack Saddlery, Transport and Cafe in Bomaderry before popping in to thank the staff at Bomaderry IGA, checking in on Krystal from Knock Out Nails, and saying hi at the Bomaderry Hotel. In Jamberoo I chatted with local butcher Peter, local real estate agent Viv, Mark from Nerilee Antiques and Emma at Crust and Crumb Catering. I took a beautiful trip down the South Coast to Batemans Bay, something I highly recommend, stopping into A Classy Touch florists and Naieve Funky Costume Jewellery, and speaking with Bronwyn and the team at Travel Team Batemans Bay. They can even help you organise your next South Coast trip. The bowling greens at Club Malua in Malua Bay are thankfully back up and running for social bowls, and they're looking sensational. Jenny from the Batehaven newsagent and Joe from Burdett Real Estate were happy to see people in the local shops again, buying fish and chips and enjoying the winter sun.
On Saturday, Captain Dave took me on the very first ferry ride on the reopened Husky Ferry. It was great to see tourists out and about again—such fantastic news for local businesses. The team at Dive Jervis Bay were happy to be back open and were feeling excited about their new upcoming adventures, including swimming with the whales. The ladies at the Husky Emporium and Liz from White Earth were bubbly and happy. Business was booming. Everywhere I went, there was hand sanitiser in the shops, limits on the number of people inside and other precautionary measures—terrific to see.
On Sunday, I checked back in with Matt and the team at The Bendy Hub in Bendalong. They were doing an absolutely roaring trade. I also caught up again with Sharon from Ray White, who I had spoken with in those early days after the bushfires. It is wonderful to see this community getting back on its feet. Even before the bushfires, a fire tore through the Bendalong General Store, and it has been a tough road for them. But on Saturday night, 400 pizzas were made—amazing!
Many local businesses said they were grateful for their staff, those amazing people on the front lines. All our local workers have been absolutely invaluable over the last few months, with bushfires and COVID-19 making things so tough. So I want to say thank you to each and every one of you for the work you have done since this all began. Where would we be without you? Thank you. I hope to see you on the beautiful South Coast very soon.
Over the June long weekend, members of the Reid electorate were acknowledged through the announcement of the Queen's Birthday honours list. It was an opportunity to recognise the great work of those in our community and country who contribute in exceptional ways.
Some recipients have made their mark in the sporting arena and beyond. Ms Bess Rosen received a Member of the Order of Australia for her contribution to the New South Wales women's hockey association. Over the last 40 years, she has volunteered significantly for the community, not only through the work in women's sports but also for Meals on Wheels and Abbotsford Cove Community Association, to name but a few. Mr Michael John Bailey was awarded the Member of the Order of Australia for his service to rugby league and to the community. He is on the board for Wests Ashfield Leagues, and in 2011 he was elected to chairman of the Reid local NRL team, the Wests Tigers.
In the arts and creative industries, Mr Raymond Peter Burgess has been acknowledged for service to the entertainment industry, while Mr Keith Mervyn Cowen has been recognised for service to the arts administration. Both have been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for their contribution to our nation's creative industries.
In the world of politics, Mr Paul John Zammit, who is no stranger to this place, was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to parliaments in Australia and New South Wales. In his time in public office, Mr Zammit was the member for Lowe, which is now the current seat of Reid.
Military awards have been presented to two worthy constituents who have displayed outstanding service. The Medal of the Order of Australia has been given to Chief Petty Officer Brady Gary Walsh for meritorious performance of duty in the field of Navy training, and Leading Seaman Patrick Georgen Palmer has been awarded the Conspicuous Service Medal for meritorious achievement of duty in the field of Navy information and communications technology.
I am so proud of my constituents who have made a wonderful contribution not only to our community but to our country, and that they've been recognised through the Queen's Birthday honours list. Their awards are very well deserved.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 1, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I'm pleased to make a few very brief remarks in connection with the work in progress of this very significant committee. I want to touch firstly on some work which was undertaken initially by the committee in the previous parliament, of which I was a member, and to associate myself with the report, which is in connection with our participation in the international efforts to deal with disinformation, fake news and concerns that are widely shared in this parliament and broadly about the operation of social media and its impact on our democracy. I'm very pleased that my colleagues Senator Brown and the member for Oxley were able to participate in the most recent engagement of that process, and I look to those recommendations and hope that we can see some fruit of that brought back before this parliament. I would also like to speak again briefly on the recommendations that go to the committee's consideration of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019. I want to restate my firm view that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is a particularly significant committee. Unlike the other committees of the parliament, it is the committee charged with safeguarding the institutional framework within which we do our work and conduct our debates. Its work is significant. In the past, and indeed through this committee, I believe, members strive to reach bipartisan views to make sure that there is a broad agreement on the framework through which we undertake our politics.
Right now I believe that rising to this challenge is more important than ever. At the moment we know that Australians crave decision-making that is clearly in the national interest broadly defined and which brings people together. That is something that we are all hearing from our constituents, and we all striving, through the various disagreements we have in this place, to meet those expectations. But meeting those expectations on a day-to-day basis requires us to look seriously at the framework within which our democracy operates. An enormous part of that is ensuring that all Australians can have trust and confidence in the operation of this place and wider democratic institutions. We've seen in recent months, for the first time, an increase in those Australians who feel trust in politics and our democratic institutions. We can't ignore this. We need to recognise that we need to do more to build on this, to turn around a decade-long decline in political trust.
A critical part of that is recognised on the Labor side and, indeed, by many of the crossbench, including my friend the member for Mayo, in reducing the influence, real and perceived, of money on our politics. That is why it is so disappointing to see this bill dealt with summarily by government members. I urge all members of this place to look carefully at the dissenting report of the Labor members and to think about that as a basis for further action in this regard.
We need to come together to boost transparency when it comes to donations reform. We need to look at lowering the disclosure framework as part of a broader approach to tidying up our political institutions. We need to think about real-time donation so that people can more clearly assess any influences on our politics outside the formal process. We need to think about issues around expenditure and ending the arms race around donations that has done so much to damage the standing of politics.
We need to take a broad look at our political institutions now. It would be remiss of me, in encouraging that this week, not to include reference to seeing a voice for Indigenous people reflected at the core of our political institutions. So I urge all members of this place to consider carefully the dissenting report of Labor members and to hold government members to account for the closing remarks in their report, for their commitment to look closely at these issues and to deliver real change in this parliament, so that Australians can have trust and confidence in the operation of our democracy.
I want to associate my remarks with some of what the member for Scullin has said, particularly the importance of the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters in this place. I was honoured to join that committee at some point in my first term, and despite a short hiatus I'm really pleased to be back. I share his view about the important need to protect the institution itself and to ensure that Australians have trust and confidence in our electoral system. In that regard, I think we should start from first principles. I personally believe that Australian democracy is a gold standard around the world. I don't think anyone would take issue with that. That's not to say that don't need to stay ever vigilant. We absolutely do. In my view, one of the reasons why the Australian democracy is the gold standard around the world is that it hasn't descended into becoming the plaything of the rich. If you look in other jurisdictions, you will see ultimately that one of the first things you need if you want to run for political office is an extremely healthy bank balance. It has become a question of individuals and their extreme personal wealth. In my view that should never be a prerequisite to running for office, and thankfully it's not in this country. But we need to be clear and careful about how we manage that. In short, those that seek to amend our donation system in this country are running a risk of very serious unintended consequences. Those unintended consequences have been highlighted by a number of political parties and movements who have made submissions in relation to this, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019, which the committee was tasked to consider.
Transparency is an important goal, and no-one is running away from the need to maintain transparency around political donations. But we need to balance that with the practical implications. On the one hand, if we were to lower the donation threshold to $1,000—when I say 'donation threshold' I mean the threshold below which disclosure doesn't need to be made—there would be a couple of very real practical limitations in my view, which I will speak to. But it's not just my view; it's a view shared by a number who made submissions to this process, including minor political parties and also the Human Rights Law Centre. The Human Rights Law Centre, in addressing this issue, said that it imposed onerous compliance obligations on community groups and charities and imposed a greater administrative burden on third party community groups and charities that rely on donations.
I don't deny that $1,000 is a reasonably large sum of money, but when you think about it on a per weekly basis—and political parties are moving increasingly to low-value, high-volume donations—then we're talking about less than $20 a week. If we were to move that threshold down from where it currently sits, which is somewhere in the order of $14,000—the figure was increased under John Howard to $10,000 and has been indexed ever since—you would, in my view, deter everyday Australians from engaging in the political process. I myself have come across examples in other jurisdictions where individuals are limited to these lower sums.
I was reflecting on this before and noted that the Labor submission speaks to the threshold being set by the then Prime Minister Bob Hawke in 1983. I thought to myself, 'I was six. I didn't really have a view of what $1,000 bought you in 1983.' So, I thought I'd reflect on some data. In 1983, the average house price in Sydney was $81,400. In 1983, the average house price in Melbourne was $52,500. Today the average house price in Melbourne is a touch under $550,000. In my respectful submission, the thresholds we have today are about on par with the thresholds that Bob Hawke set in 1983. We all know what inflation does to the value of money, but we have a threshold which is more or less based on a 10-times multiplier of the threshold set in 1983 of $1,000. House prices have increased more or less by the same magnitude, so I suggest to you that the thresholds we're currently operating under have the same practical effect as those in 1983.
Suffice to say that that's not the only issue that I and the government take issue with. We also shouldn't underestimate the administrative burden that administering a program of this type would result in. That has been highlighted by, amongst others, the AEC. I appreciate that others will say, 'We'll just give the AEC more resources.' Fair enough. But I'm more concerned about the deleterious administrative burden that will be borne by minor parties. Larger political parties, one of which I'm a member of and represent, will have the architecture, the administrative know-how and the manpower to get this work done. What I don't think you can say is that minor parties—particularly independents, but minor parties as well—would share in that view. Before others in this place jump to their feet and clamour that all will be fine, there are a number of minor political parties, such as the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, who have indicated their objection to this proposal on that very basis.
We need to be clear about this. The administrative burden would effectively impose a barrier to entry. If we were to drop the thresholds to this point, increasing the need for backroom administration, then those of us, particularly from large political parties, would be able to deal with it, and minor political parties would be able to deal with it, if they've got the resources that come with political office. But I'll tell you who will be most disadvantaged: minor political parties with aspiration—those parties out there that don't have a publicly funded office or administration and that don't have the benefit of public resources that come with winning an election and other things. I think we need to be very cognisant of, and the government has been very cognisant of, the unintended consequences. It is important to note that we've got a gold standard democracy. I think everyone would accept that transparency in our democracy, particularly at a federal level, is the envy of the rest of the world. In terms of the donation threshold, in my view, on the quantum, we've got the balance about right and we've had it about right since it was first instituted in 1983. But the benefits of such a scheme do not outweigh the costs of it in terms of the administrative burden and the difficulties that it will impose on minor political parties as well. That is why the government has adopted the position it has.
Finally, I need to make this observation. People in this place who reckon that donations exert political influence or are the best way to exert political influence are perhaps belying the reality and the recent reality. I think if someone were looking to exert political influence or influence over political processes in a way that amounts to malfeasance—and in my view any form of donation for political or policy outcome is an exercise in malfeasance—then there are far easier ways and much more illegal ways to go about that. So, I suggest that the efforts of those in this place who want to maintain the quality, veracity and strength of our democracy should target their guns, if you like, on those other ways that influence is exerted on political actors. In recent times, in this place, we've seen people leave this place and the other place—I'm not going to mention names, but I think they all come to mind—where, for example, personal debts were satisfied and those sorts of things, all of which sit way outside the political donations framework. I think it is to those things that we should turn our attention if we want a healthy, strong and resilient democracy.
Firstly, I'd like to thank the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for undertaking an inquiry with respect to my private member's bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019. I would say that the bill was not asking for the world. It just sought to make the political world more transparent to an increasingly cynical nation. The committee examined the issue of lowering the political donation threshold from $13,800 to $1,000 and removing ongoing indexation. The decision of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters not to recommend that it be put forward to the parliament is not only disappointing but, I would go as far to say, a blow to democracy. I would like to thank Labor for their dissenting report and I would encourage people who are interested in this area to read the report.
I would like to note the committee's comments on what they were potentially concerned about. They say the bill 'would potentially place considerable additional administrative and financial burdens on the Australian Electoral Commission; minor political parties; independents; community groups; charities; and third parties'. I can say, as a member from a minor party, that we can live with that administrative burden. We don't have the resources that even, say, the Greens have. They actually have party status. There are just three of us. We would be very satisfied, as would be a number of Independents in this place who want to see this kind of donation reform.
Let me be quite clear: right now, a family of five can give $60,000 to a political party and no-one in Australia is any the wiser. I don't think that's a good situation. I think that there are many people right across Australia who don't think that is a fair and right thing to exist in our democracy. The Museum of Australian Democracy report in 2018 clearly showed that trust in democracy is on the decline, with satisfaction in democracy more than halved in a decade and trust in key institutions and social levers eroding. As leaders in the political system, it's up to us—it's up to the parliament—to address this decline. We cannot continue to avoid the reality of the decline in trust in us and the decline in respect of us. You only have to look to the United States to see how the collapse in trust of those in authority has driven millions to the streets to protest in the middle of a pandemic. Trust takes time to rebuild, but the first steps towards that, I believe, include transparency. That 2018 Museum of Australian Democracy report showed that most Australians are happy with democracy as a system of government. They just do not like the way politicians practice democracy. One of the first steps towards fixing this is to open the books so people have a greater understanding of exactly who is funding politicians to get into the job before they go to the ballot box.
I am forever an optimist. I note that there will be a review in November that the committee will be undertaking. That will look at the new legislation, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018. It will undertake a holistic examination of the current disclosure regime of political donations. As I said, I am optimistic that we will see change. I think it will benefit all of us: minor parties, Independents and major parties. The more we can do to regain the trust of the Australian community the better for all of us.
I want to start by congratulating the member for Mayo, not just on putting forward the private member's bill, which the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reported on and we're taking note of, but also on the speech she just made about transparency and integrity in politics, because it is fundamentally important. I start my speech by congratulating my Labor colleagues who are members of that committee on their dissenting report, because it is fundamentally important that we deal with the influence of big money in politics. That is a subset of this point: we rebuild the trust—the ongoing rebuilding of trust—of the Australian people, not in democracy per se but in the way all of us, collectively as politicians, practise democracy. The member for Scullin described the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters as a fundamentally important committee because of its role in safeguarding the institutional framework of democracy. He put that extremely well. The institutional framework of democracy is what we have in our country to guarantee that we have a political system that serves the people. I'm not the first person to say that democracy is not perfect, but it's the best system that we have. That is very true, but the responsibility of all of us who have the privilege of being elected to be members of this parliament is to continue to strive to make that democracy better. It's a strange argument to say that something that was introduced in 1983 should always be the standard. This government likes to refer to Bob Hawke and is perhaps at times trying to emulate Bob Hawke, but it's no Hawke government. The member for Barker should be aware that what the Hawke government put in place in 1983 was groundbreaking, but it's 2020 now and we can't just sit on our laurels. We must continue to strive to make our democracy better.
We in this place all know that trust in politicians and politics in Australia has been on a decade-long decline. Last year we were looking at 26 per cent of the community who had trust in politics and politicians. It is true to say—and it is welcome—that some trust has been regained recently because of the way in which politicians from across the political spectrum, at state and federal government level, have dealt with the health crisis of COVID-19. But it's a shame, isn't it, that it took a global pandemic for something to shift in Australian political behaviour and for our community to start to show some trust?
So here's a moment that we should all be taking to build on that trust, and not have it be a fleeting moment in time. It is a moment when Australians are looking at their leaders and saying: 'Yes, you are putting the national interest before your own interest. Yes, you are acting on data and the advice of experts and scientists and making difficult decisions that aren't always electorally popular but are for the good of the people. We respect you for that, even while we have to make sacrifices because of your decisions.' We need to take this moment in time to bring in broader reforms to the way we behave as politicians and the way this parliament operates and democracy operates, to build on trust and to have better politics. We need to reform question time, not just because the procedures are outdated but because the way politicians behave in question time is embarrassing. We should be ashamed of some of the things that we see. In my opinion, we need to put in place a code of practice for politicians as to how we behave in parliament so that when schoolchildren, adults and older Australians watch question time in parliament they say, 'That's how leaders behave,' not, 'That's how children are taught not to behave.'
We need to have a government that has a genuine commitment to transparency, a government that will answer difficult questions, look at difficult issues, take Australians into their trust—as has been done a number of times during this pandemic—and say: 'This is hard. We don't always have the answers. Yes, we got some things wrong, but together let's work towards solving this problem.' That's how we rebuild trust.
We need to look at constitutional reform first and foremost—and, gee, over the last week and a half haven't we seen why we need it? We need to have an Indigenous voice to parliament. We need to recognise the First Nations people of this country and we need to adopt all of the recommendations of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including truth-telling. Australia's history is a difficult history. It's difficult for our First Nations people. It's difficult for us to have to acknowledge the way in which they have been treated since day one. But you cannot have true reconciliation and move forward until you have truth-telling. History isn't perfect. That's why we have to learn our history properly and then learn from our history. It's not just symbolic to say that our Constitution has to recognise First Nations people, and it's much more than symbolic to say that we should have a constitutionally recognised voice to parliament.
If we have four-year terms in this parliament, if we give governments time to govern and less time to campaign, perhaps we can have governments that have three-, five- and 10-year plans for our country. We might even have, one day, a Liberal-National government that is brave enough to stand up and say: 'Climate change is real, and we're going to take real actions to deal with it, on the advice of scientists, experts and data. We might feel a bit of electoral pain from our base for a little while, but we're going to put those measures in place and you're going to see the good results.' We'd then go to a vote, after a four-year term, being able to point to the improvements in our way of life because we'd actually have dealt with one of the greatest threats facing countries around the world, which is climate change.
We need a federal ICAC. Sports rorts has shown that. The most recent export rorts, which were raised in question time yesterday, with 97 per cent of grants to small business for exports before the election going to Liberal seats, have shown that. We know it's not enough to act honestly, to act with integrity; we have to be seen to act honestly, to act with integrity. And we have to be willing to be held up to high standards. We need to meet them but also we need to be willing to be held to those standards and, quite frankly, investigated if there is any suggestion that we haven't met them.
When David Thodey did a review of the Australian Public Service, he said:
To build trust in the public sector, all participants in the system—the APS, Parliament and ministers (along with their advisers) as well as third parties—must operate with high levels of integrity.
They're simple words and they're true words. Not only must we act with high levels of integrity; we must be seen to act with high levels of integrity. And we must not be scared of transparency. That is what the bill that the committee considered was about and that's what reforming democracy is about.
There is a moment in time now that we must grab. Question time yesterday saw ministers and the Prime Minister revert to name calling and personal attacks in response to questions about government policies, like robodebt, which have caused real pain and harm to citizens. We can't have that continue. We can't snap back to politics the way it was in 2019. We have to build a better future out of this pandemic. We have to take this fledgling opportunity, when there is some growing trust in Australian politicians, to build a better democracy.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to these reports, both because I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and because I do believe that both of these reports go to matters that are important to our democracy. They go to how people perceive our electoral process, how they regard their elected representatives and how much trust they place in our system of democracy. As elected representatives, these are issues that we should all be concerned about, because, without trust in our actions, we struggle to be able to effect change. We're actually in a position at the moment where, as a result of the recent pandemic and people looking to us for support through a time of crisis, trust in politics is at a much higher level than it has been in a long time. That's something we should build on, not something we should squander. It's why these reports are particularly important. Firstly, the report on the International Grand Committee meeting looked at the business model of social media and search platforms such as Facebook and Google, the data-collection process, the disinformation and the electoral interference. We know that the way people get information has changed drastically with the rise of social media. Indeed, with recent trends, many people have no choice but to rely on social media for their information. With the rate of closure of local, regional and other news organisations during this pandemic, and journalists' jobs being slashed, we're actually forced to go to social media because there's very little traditional media remaining. But social media isn't regulated in the same way as traditional media—there isn't an editor. Therefore, it is very difficult for people to assess where their information is coming from, and it is very easy for other people to manipulate that information with malicious intent.
The report from the International Grand Committee meeting highlights a number of these issues. The experts who reported that meeting included reports of how the business model of social media and search platforms rely on monetising personal data, while encouraging users to engage addictively with the platforms, creating a vicious but highly lucrative circle in which click-bait material of hate, outrage, conspiracy and tribalism proves the most engaging. They reported how there's a capacity for both state and non-state actors to run disinformation operations, and that there was evidence of this occurring in international election contexts, including the French presidential election in 2017. They reported how this is a global issue, and that there is a need for governments to work together on possible solutions.
I want to be very clear that, here in Australia, we are not exempt from this problem. We only have to look at the previous election and the spread of information around Labor apparently introducing a death tax—completely false material, completely false reports, but that information spread. Reports and investigations since the federal election have shown how that information spread across Facebook, and it spread across Facebook without being tracked. My experience as a candidate in that election was that I was completely unaware of these reports, because they were untrue, until I was standing in a pre-poll line a couple of weeks before the election and someone came up to me and said, 'But what about death taxes?' I said, 'What death taxes?' They said to me, 'You know; the death taxes Labor is going to put in,'' and I said, 'That is completely untrue.'
It is really scary that this information can spread without being seen, without being clear who is sharing it and without us knowing that it is out there. It is really open to manipulation, not just by political parties but also by foreign state actors and by people with malicious intent to undermine our democracy. It's a problem that we have to consider very seriously.
Concerningly, we know that Facebook itself and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, have shown little interest in addressing the spread of misinformation on that platform. We've seen this most recently in the US in the past few weeks with the protests and civil unrest there. But, again, as I've said, we've seen it in the Australian electoral experience. In fact, Facebook haven't even done Australia the courtesy of setting up an election library, which they've set up for many other countries and which would allow us to track election ads at least during an election period. But they don't think that we're worthy of having that system of tracking this information. I am concerned that it's an issue that Facebook is not taking seriously.
It is an issue that governments, including the Australian government, have to get serious about. They need to take this report seriously. They need to look to work from like-minded parliaments overseas and think about which of those measures we may also be able to adopt here. Without that, we run the risk of continuing to conduct conversations in extreme bubbles—conversations that are open to manipulation and to misinformation.
The other report that's before us goes to electoral donation reform—and what a missed opportunity we have in this government's response to this issue. Electoral donation reform is something that Labor has been pushing for for a long time now. The submissions to this inquiry made it clear that the influence of big money on our politics is something that many people and organisations are very unimpressed with. Unions would certainly be part of these regulations. Again, this is an issue of trust. If people believe our politics is being operated and manipulated by the influence of donations that don't have to be reported, why should they trust what we have to say? Why should they back us when we ask for reform or back us on restrictions or trust in our system? We have to earn that trust. One of the ways that we earn it is through being transparent about where the money is coming from and when it's received.
Our current laws leave enormous gaps in requirements for reporting donations, both in terms of the amount that can be donated without disclosure, as well as the time it takes for donations to have to be declared. Donations of up to $14,000 don't have to be reported, and it can be up to 19 months before voters know that a donation has been made—19 months! There is no transparency in that. Indeed, the Centre for Public Integrity estimates that these rules mean that around $1 billion in party income has not been disclosed since 1999, or almost 30 per cent of the funding parties have received, because of these loose requirements. That's not democracy. That's an opportunity for unseen influence.
Labor currently has two bills before the Senate that seek to reform this area. One would lower the donation threshold from the current $14,000 to a fixed $1,000. The other provides for real-time disclosure, which would require donations above the threshold to be disclosed within seven days. Of course for these reforms to be successful we'll need to support organisations and the AEC with the funding and the systems to make them work. But that is certainly not beyond our capacity. Indeed, many states across our country have already introduced similar reforms. Yet this government is continuing to block any efforts for reform in this space.
The recent increase in public trust and support for democracy shows that a good chunk of the Australian public actually want us to do better. They want us to succeed. Yet all we keep serving them up, time after time, is more of the same. When the opportunity comes before us to do better, to say that we will be transparent, to say that we will show where the money comes from and we'll tell them when it comes in, we pass on it. We're better than that. We can all be better than that. Even the government can be better than that. This is in all of our interests. If we don't take these opportunities now at this time of change, when are we going to? Are we going to be having this same argument in another decade? Is the next me, a newly elected MP, here for a year, still keen on reform? Is she going to be standing here calling for reforms that allow for trust in our democracy? Or will our systems be so eroded by then that what happens in this chamber and this place will be largely irrelevant, because people will no longer trust what we say or have an interest in thinking that we might follow through on some of the things that are happening here? Perhaps people will be so cynical, because they will think, 'Well, you are just being operated by money I can't see, by big organisations, big companies, people with deep pockets' That's not in any of our interests. We can do better. I urge everyone in this place to stand up for these reforms. Labor is doing that. We've got these bills before the Senate. I urge the government to get on board. I know the Independents have also been on board. I do want to thank all the people and organisations who took the time to make a submission to this inquiry. It was really important. It is time for us to make change in these spaces.
Can I firstly thank the member for Jagajaga for her very erudite presentation of the arguments as to why we should be making these changes to lower the donation disclosure threshold. This has been an issue for the labour movement in particular for some years. It is important that everyone in this country understands who is providing the resources behind political parties. It needs transparency. It is part of what we need to open up our democracy, just like it's important to open up our democracy by making sure that everyone who's got the right to vote does vote. Sadly, that's not the case when it comes to people who live in remote communities, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as my friend the member for Leichhardt could attest. Over the last week or so we've seen massive demonstrations across the world and here in Australia around Black Lives Matter and all the attendant issues that go around addressing disadvantage and making sure that people are open to participating in our country and having issues dealt with that they need to have dealt with. The problem with that, of course, is that if you're an Aboriginal person living in a remote part of this country, you're very unlikely—in the Electoral Commission's own figures, at June 2019 only 68 per cent of the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory who were eligible to vote were enrolled to vote. In Western Australia the figure was 65 per cent. The turnout was around 70 per cent. The formal vote is around the same. So you're getting roughly around half the Aboriginal population actually exercising a formal vote.
That raises very significant issues for us in this country. If we're saying we want to hear the voices of Aboriginal people—even though this government denies them that opportunity in terms of a voice to parliament—if we want to hear the voices of Aboriginal people at the ballot box, which is where we want them to exercise their voice, then we'd be making sure they were enrolled to vote. Yet this is not the case. Despite the figure I used from the Australian Electoral Commission, the Australian National Audit Office had a figure suggesting that 42 per cent of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are not enrolled to vote. Think about it: only 58 per cent are enrolled to vote. How are they exercising their voice in this democracy of ours if they can't vote?
Part of the issue here goes to the way in which this government has run down the resources of the Australian Electoral Commission. In 2013-2014 there were 179 visits by remote teams to Aboriginal communities across Australia. They had $3 million devoted for that purpose. In 2018-19 that figure had dropped to 91. In the case of the Northern Territory, the Australian Electoral Commission dropped its staffing from 15 people to 3. There are 280-odd polling places in my electorate of Lingiari, 280 remote polling places, which require polling teams to be moving out a fortnight before the final date of the election, on the Monday of the penultimate week, involved in mobile polling. It's very important that people are involved in that polling process. But if there is significant underenrolment, as we know now there is, what action is the Commonwealth taking to address that underenrolment issue?
One of the issues we have here is that direct automatic enrolment is not available to remote communities. That's a significant issue. Direct enrolment is not used in remote communities—God knows for what reason. But there are obvious ways in which you can inform people that they are on the roll apart from using the postal service. There are electronic media which we all use very effectively and which are used effectively by people who live in remote places.
But the fundamental issue here is really, really very important. I think there is an argument to say that the lack of engagement by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission and, indeed, this government, by not ensuring people are properly enrolled to vote and informed on how to vote and exercise their vote at election time, is an act of discrimination. I think there is an argument that it could be contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act in this country, and that's something which this government should take seriously. We have obligations under international law. We're party to agreements in the United Nations which talk about the rights of people to exercise their rights in the democracy, yet we're clearly making it extremely difficult for Aboriginal people who live in remote places to be enrolled and to have a vote.
I've been involved in I forget how many elections—12, and some before that; 12 of my own, that is. They've all involved remote community polling. Very little has changed in the way in which we enrol people. Very little has changed. If you don't have face-to-face interaction, it is extremely difficult unless you're doing automatic direct enrolment. Unless you have face-to-face interaction and take people through the process of filling out an enrolment form, then people don't get enrolled. There are language issues, obviously, for people who live in remote places, where English is the second or third or fourth language. You need to make sure that they've got access to interpreter services so that they understand what you're talking about.
Up until 1996, the Electoral Commission had mobile voting enrolment and education teams operating across remote Australia. One of the first actions of the Howard government was to get rid of them. They haven't been put back since, although there was an increase in the expenditure under Labor. That makes it really, really difficult to understand how this government can be committed to addressing rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country if they don't give them the fundamental right to exercise a vote on polling day. It seems to me that it's in the hands of the government to make changes here, and it requires them to fund the Commonwealth Electoral Commission appropriately so that they can put in place these electoral teams with the proper personnel to be operating on a full-time basis across remote Australia, talking to people about the importance of voting, making sure they're enrolled to vote and turning up on voting day to exercise their right to vote and actually vote formally.
As I'm sure the member for Leichhardt will know from his experience in remote places, sometimes these things are very difficult. The resourcing of remote mobile polling teams is difficult. The ability of the Commonwealth Electoral Commission to do its work in remote places is difficult. We accept that. That's not to say it can't be done or shouldn't be done; it should be done, and every effort should be made to make sure that it is done. This government has chosen the opposite path, undermining the rights of First Nations people in this country to exercise their proper rights as citizens by making sure they're enrolled to vote and exercise a formal vote on polling day.
We talk about a lot in this place. We talk fulsomely about the importance of public policy. We talk fulsomely about the importance of engaging with people across the electorate, across the community. We talk fulsomely about getting people engaged and making them informed, providing them with opportunity. Well, the most fundamental opportunity in this country as a citizen is the right to vote. Yet here we've got what is arguably discriminatory action by this government, ensuring that Aboriginal people in remote communities do not have that right to vote because they've failed to ensure that they're enrolled to vote in an appropriate manner.
Debate adjourned.
I understand that the custom around the traps around here is that in your first term you should write a book. After this week, I think I've found my topic: 'Men of the Liberal and National parties explain things to me'.
A government member interjecting—
I will add you to a chapter! I have come from the House, where the member for New England, with his innate, extraordinary, telepathic ability to look into the hearts and minds of 30,000 protesters at the Black Lives Matter march in Brisbane, explained to me that, actually, all of us only acted out of a selfish, innate, millennial desire to virtue signal, and that was all there was behind 30,000 people turning out to protest about the issue of Indigenous incarceration in this country.
Earlier this week, Senator Gerard Rennick, over in the Senate, helpfully explained to me and the women of Australia that actually all of our children just wanted to be at home with a parent, and that was where they were best off. He actually said, 'Dorothy didn't say, "There's no place like child care"; she said, "There's no place like home."' I think the fact that he has used a 1939 movie to incite the next wave of government policy tells us all we need to know about the forward-looking, modern nature of this Liberal National Party.
Finally, Mathias Cormann—who will pop up again in my book—has been telling women to be grateful for the 13.9 per cent gender pay gap and some of the highest part-time work rates for women in the OECD.
Men of the Liberal and National parties explain things to me. It seems that there has been no gendered analysis or even input from women for the Morrison government's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Just look at the Expenditure Review Committee: a team of five men, the youngest of whom is 48 years old. Is it any wonder that women and young people are being left behind when they have absolutely no voice at the senior levels of this government?
The majority of frontline workers during this pandemic have been women: they are supermarket workers, they are healthcare workers, they are cleaners, they are teachers and they are early educators. Research put out this week by the Australia Institute has found that the number of women employed fell by 5.3 per cent in comparison to 3.9 per cent for men. The number of hours worked fell by 11.5 per cent for women, but 7.5 per cent for men. And despite the fact that the government and Senator Cormann—I told you he'd come up again—have found a $60 billion estimates variation, which is a form of government wording that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of, a $60 billion 'estimates variation', they have not released any funding to support the specific way that COVID-19 has impacted women economically.
In Brazil, they have announced cash grants for single mothers. In Canada, they have specifically supported female entrepreneurs. In India, they have released grants for women. In Turkey, they have increased social benefits specifically for women. And the US—even the US—has released grants for women's business centring on education, training and advising. We have seen early access to superannuation opened up, which is apparently a measure to support people who have become unemployed or fallen on hard times, but it will directly impact women, who are already on average likely to retire with 47 per cent less superannuation than men. We've also seen appalling snap decisions in child care that are nothing short of a shambles. Supposedly free child care one day, leaving childcare centres themselves to operate on half their revenue, and childcare workers being stripped of JobKeeper the next. First off the dinghy: the 91 per cent of early childcare educators who are women, of whom 40 per cent are aged under 29. We've seen women excluded from JobKeeper because they did not meet the casual employment requirements, even though women disproportionately engage in casual work, and we've seen women in small business, our sole traders, excluded altogether. To bring me back to my upcoming book, 'Men in the Liberal and National parties explain things to me', I think Gerard Rennick said it best, 'We're not in Kansas anymore.'
The name Holden conjures up many memories for millions of Australians. It is a part of life for so many of us. It is a brand that has firmly entrenched itself in Australian culture, and has been a way of life for almost a century. Holden dominated the Australian car market for many years and produced motor vehicles that are still classics to this day. Who could forget the late Peter Brock's association with Holden that spanned more than four decades? The legendary racer made his debut in Bathurst in 1969 in a Holden HT Monaro GTS 350, and would go on to tame the mountain nine times over his career and write himself into Holden and Australian folklore. I'm sure there are many in this House that have their own fond memories of Holden motor vehicles, myself included; however, more recently, Holden has fallen on tough times for a variety of reasons. I want to acknowledge the long-term business investment General Motors has made in Australia for close to 90 years, but recent decisions, in my view, have absolutely trashed that reputation.
Sadly, in 2017 General Motors-Holden ceased vehicle and engine production in Australia, a true end of an era. At the time the company committed to retaining 1,000 direct staff, plus 6,000 people across its national dealer network; however, fast-forward to less than three years later, General Motors-Holden have now decided to withdraw their vehicle sales completely from the Australian market. This will have a devastating impact on more than 200 Holden dealerships across Australia, including in my electorate, and put in jeopardy thousands of jobs at a time when every job is an essential job.
One of those dealerships that will be affected by General Motors' decision is Ireland's of Cairns. I want to take the opportunity to put a name and a story on the record, because Ireland's of Cairns is more than just a number on somebody's spreadsheet. Ireland's of Cairns principal, Richard Ireland, who, I might add, was recently awarded a well-deserved OAM, is the public face of what can only be described as a Cairns institution. Establishing the business in 1923, the Ireland name is well known for great service and quality automotive products in our region. It is a family owned business that has been in Cairns for six generations, with Richard being the third-generation motor dealer.
The Ireland's involvement in our community is more than just a dealership on Mulgrave Road. They've invested heavily and passionately in the community they call home. The Ireland family helped set up and continue to support the Cairns Taipans NBL basketball team and many other local sporting clubs. They've supported the not-for-profit groups of Rotary, Red Cross, Far North Queensland Youth Assistance Fund, Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Advance Cairns, Cairns Choral Society, Cairns Art Society, the Cairns Art Gallery, James Cook University and many, many others. They regularly engage with local high schools via work experience, and have attended countless career days to share their extensive knowledge of the automotive industry. They've also given many Cairns youngsters their first chance through apprenticeships, something they should be extremely proud of.
You can see that Ireland's of Cairns are more than simply just a car dealership on Mulgrave Road; they are a critical part of our amazing community. I am sure other Holden dealerships in countless other communities across the nation will have the same stories. Ireland's of Cairns have given so much to our community, and it's so important for me, as a community representative, to stand up and fight for them. GM was forced into mediation only yesterday, and it was absolutely appalling. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, trying to abrogate themselves from any responsibility. Australian Holden dealers have bravely supported General Motors' own brands for almost 90 years, so for GM to effectively terminate their agreement 2½ years early without satisfactory compensation and exit the country, like a mongrel dog, in the midst of a pandemic, when livelihoods are already under immense pressure, is appalling behaviour and inconsistent with the ethical practices that General Motors are supposedly espousing. General Motors will have a mother of a fight on their hands if they think for one minute that they can simply pack up and leave the people who have invested so much over so many years high and dry.
If there's one thing that has become clear during the pandemic it's what insecure work means for people. The first people to be joining the Centrelink queues were people who did not have permanent employment. The first group to discover that they were ineligible for JobKeeper were a million casuals. For a long time in Australia, the situation for casual workers has been getting tougher and tougher and their numbers have been growing. We now have, throughout Australia, across all the different definitions, three million people who don't have leave attached to their employment, and 2½ million of those are in employment relationships and are employed as casuals—2½ million Australian workers.
The Rossato decision that came down a few weeks ago, which the government tried to prevent—the government had joined the case and had argued against the decision that the court ultimately took—was a really significant win for casuals. It did not give rise to some of the fear campaigns that had been put out there. It did not say that every casual suddenly is entitled to leave entitlements. What it did say is: where there is a 'firm advance commitment', then what you have is a permanent worker—when you have a 'firm advance commitment'.
Let's have a think about what has become all too common in the Queensland coal industry for a whole lot of coalminers and, in particular, what were the circumstances of this worker, Mr Rossato. Here you've got somebody who is working a full-time roster, who doesn't just happen to have turned out to have full-time hours week by week but was given a full-time roster 12 months in advance, a complete commitment that he would be working full-time. He was working side by side with people who had the benefits of full-time employment, but he was employed doing the same job on the same full-time basis by a labour hire company. So what was happening for Mr Rossato? He gets told, 'Well, because you're employed by a labour hire company, you've got a lower base rate than the people working beside you doing the same job. But we'll claim that you're a casual, so you're not going to accumulate any leave, even though even after the casual loading's added on, because you're on a lower base rate, you're being paid less than the people you're working beside.' Those were the circumstances of this case. So, for people who've said, 'Oh, but they were being paid the casual loading,' the casual worker was earning less each hour than the full-time worker doing the exact same job beside them.
The government never should have been involved opposing this decision. The government never should have been arguing against the rights of someone who was being given full-time hours at less than the ordinary full-time rate for the workers he was working side by side with, yet they wanted to deny him all leave times entitlements.
Employers should not be allowed to double dip. They should not be allowed to take all the benefits that come with having a permanent workforce, and think they get those benefits and they, in return, can offer none of the obligations that you would owe to a full-time employee. Employers should not be able to double dip—taking all those benefits and providing none of the obligations. What we had with Mr Rossato was somebody who effectively was being paid a little bit above the award but a whole lot less than his fellow workers. And then they say, 'Oh, but he was a casual because we defined him as a casual.' No; the definition of a casual is how you are rostered. The definition of a casual is whether or not you are given a 'firm advance commitment' and it falls above those part-time minimum hours. He had a full-time job. It was a complete rort for him to be defined as a casual. Out of this crisis we've got to be in a situation where we realise people who are going to work every day on permanent rosters deserve security, because those who weren't given security were left behind, not only in their employment but by the JobKeeper package and the benefits that the government then cut them out of.
I rise today to acknowledge the achievements of 10 people from my electorate of Curtin who were rightfully recognised in the Australian Queen's Birthday 2020 Honours List for the significant service they have given to our local, national and international communities. The fields of service include business, public health, education, law, medical administration, humanitarian aid and the Perth community.
The award of Officer of the Order of Australia was given to two people. Professor Bryant Stokes for distinguished service to public healthcare governance and standards in WA through leadership and advisory roles. There is not a medic in WA who does not know of Professor Stokes, and a sizable number of them have had the fortune to learn from him. Professor Stokes has been a pre-eminent leader in medicine and public health for a number of decades, both in WA and across the country, and has been formally recognised by his peers with numerous awards over the years. He has held roles with the department of WA Health. He has also undertaken groundbreaking reviews across mental health, the four-hour rule and hospitals and health services in WA, the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales.
The second Officer of the Order of Australia is Dr Colin Beckett. He was awarded for distinguished service to business in the energy, gas and oil production and infrastructure sectors, and to tertiary education. Dr Beckett has held senior executive roles in the mining and gas industry throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, during which time he also served in senior roles in the advocacy body. Since 2015, Dr Beckett has served in numerous non-executive sectors in energy but also as chairman of the Perth Airport between 2015 and 2018 and as chancellor of Curtin University from 2013 to 2018.
Seven people in my electorate of Curtin were given the award of Member of the Order of Australia. I won't have time to go in detail on all of them, so I will pick out a number. Mr David Airey was awarded the order for significant service to the real estate industry and to professional institutes. Mr Airey has been a fixture in WA real estate for five decade, running his own successful agency since 2018. He's also been involved in numerous leadership roles in the Real Estate Institute of WA and the Real Institute of Australia. In his spare time—not that he has had much—he was a local councillor and the director of the Claremont Football Club.
Mr Kevin John Edwards was awarded the order for significant service to the legal profession and to aged care and sporting organisations. Mr Edwards has practiced as a solicitor in WA for 56 years. For those in the law, that's almost three life sentences. Throughout these years he mentored and taught hundreds of young boys and was well known for his patience and his wisdom. He also served the profession on the Law Society of Western Australia and the Public Notary Society of WA, and had a number of non-executive roles, including in the WA Football Commission and Catholic Homes.
Professor Neil Drew, an old colleague of mine, was awarded the order for significant service to tertiary education, to behavioural science, and to Indigenous health. Professor Drew's professional calling of psychology has informed his passionate and tireless advocacy and work, both as an academic and practitioner, in Aboriginal youth and community wellbeing initiatives.
Dr Alastair Tulloch, a urological surgeon by profession, has practised in both the public and private health systems in WA and served as a medical director of St John of God Hospital for 10 years between 1995 and 2006. Like many of the other recipients, he gave service as a local councillor for over a decade, and was a very active member in the establishment and driving forward the initiative of Shine Aged Care Services.
Mr Ian Lindsay Kaye-Eddie was chief executive officer of St John's Ambulance for close to 30 years, between 1978 and 2016. When he retired in 2006, he didn't just step down; he passionately took record and ownership of the history and records of the St John's Ambulance to make sure that it was there forever.
Finally, the medal for the Order of Australia was awarded to one person, Mrs Phyllis Proud, who has been an active volunteer in WA across decades.
To all of you, congratulations on your well-deserved recognition and thank you for your service.
Among the principles which guide the NDIA in all their functions is the unequivocal statement that 'people with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to respect for their worth and dignity and to live free from abuse, neglect and exploitation'.
Ms Ann Marie Smith died after being deposited in a cane chair in her living room, where she remained for well over a year. She sat in that chair for 24 hours a day, and it served as both her toilet and her bed. The South Australian community, if not the Australian community, is outraged—and rightly so. We are heartbroken, and we want to know why. Ann Marie Smith had been an NDIS participant since 2018. In April this year she died. But it was not her disability that ended her life; she died from severe septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy. Ms Smith's death was not the inevitable consequence of her disability. Her death was entirely preventable. Her death shows that, when the work of a person with a disability is reduced to a dollar figure on a provider's balance sheet, to be reconciled by the regulator, the system fails.
The NDIS Quality Safeguards Commission has the regulatory and safeguarding oversight of all NDIS participants. The commission purports to work with NDIS participants, service providers and workers in the community, so participants can access services and supports that promote choice, control and dignity. Left to wither in her cane chair, Ms Smith was denied that choice; she was denied control; and she was denied the dignity that she rightly deserved.
There is a fundamental flaw in the legislative framework if the welfare of vulnerable and isolated participants is only questioned when a complaint is made. The Commission must adopt a proactive participant focused approach to its compliance activities, and we need to ensure that vulnerable participants are identified and assigned an advocate at the earliest possible opportunity. If that means additional funding for both individual and systemic advocacy organisations, then that is a small price for the government, for our community, to pay. Ms Smith would not have died if she had been assigned an advocate to fight for her rights.
How can it be that this did not raise any flags with anyone involved in the administration of her care? Reportedly, she received six hours of care every day from the same carer for a period of six years—the same carer for six years; nobody else! How could Integrity Care, the provider on record, believe that one carer would be capable of attending to all of Ms Smith's needs, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for six years? Did anyone from the NDIA or the commission ever attend Ms Smith's home to check on her welfare during the last six years? What checks were done on the carer? My colleague in the other place, Senator Griff, has called for the production of documents that may answer these questions, and I look forward to the minister's response in due course.
I urge the government to also consider the experiences of those who sit outside of the NDIS. There are approximately 4.3 million people in Australia living with a disability but only around 450,000 people will access the NDIS. Last year the Productivity Commission conducted a review of the National Disability Agreement, 2010 to 2020, a document that frames the shared responsibilities for state and federal governments in this sector. The commission found the NDIA no longer served its purpose, with little progress towards performance targets and a new agreement was needed to promote cooperation, accountability and to clarify the roles and responsibilities of state and federal governments when it comes to disability services. The National Disability Agreement is due to expire this year. Ann Marie Smith should be front of mind when the government begins work on the next 10-year plan for disability services in Australia.
Ann Marie, I am so so sorry that you were let down like this. We cannot allow this to happen again.
Trevor William Hicks, born in 1966: if you need something in Eden-Monaro, he's the one to get it fixed. What we have now, going forward for Eden-Monaro, is a great National Party candidate who exemplifies what we want to present to the people of Eden-Monaro—an automotive electrician, an automotive engineer, a person who has worked with his hands, a person who has had a trade. He's going to be a great complement to what we have in this parliament. We have enough solicitors. We have enough white-collar workers. We need somebody who has a trade, who understands business—someone who's been in business for 22 years. I was speaking to a mayor this morning. He said, 'One of the problems in council now is that you have so many people with degrees.' Degrees are wonderful things—I've got one myself—but those with them don't understand business. They don't understand the realities of what it's like to work with your hands, of what it's like to understand the sweat that runs down the back of your collar because you are wondering if you are going to be able to pay the bank manager or the wages that week, of understanding how you build a business. They don't understand what it's like to be a person who's not determined by the agenda of somebody else but a person who determines their own agenda.
I know that Trevor Hicks has a vision for Eden-Monaro: the Barton Highway duplication, driving more business out to Yass, helping those shops in Yass, helping people who are recovering from the drought. He understands his electorate and all the privations they have had to deal with by reason of the bushfires. Having been at the forefront, as a deputy mayor, he understands this, and that is why he'd be a great member of this parliament, if the good people of Eden-Monaro give him that chance. I might also note that he's a person from the side of the range where the water runs west. He understands Queanbeyan. He understands that Eden-Monaro, on the other hand, needs to develop its deepwater port and that it is vital for the economic development of this area.
Mr Trevor William Hicks empathises and understands what's happening in the dairy industry. In my discussions with him, he's talked about making sure he drives for a royal commission so that farmers get a fair price. I know that with the loss of people such as John 'Wacka' Williams we have lost people who, in their previous lives, got their hands dirty and worked for a living in a blue-collar way. It's incumbent on us to make sure that we have those types of people in this parliament. I am not, for one second, belittling other candidates who might be running in the election, but I say that, with Trevor Hicks, we have something unique, something that's special.
I look forward on the weekend to working with Trevor Hicks and going to Batlow, Tumut, where my mother came from, Adelong and Tumbarumba. I know that, with the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, John Barilaro, he has absolutely got his shoulder to the wheel on behalf of the people of Queanbeyan. Mr Trevor Hicks of Captain's Flat understands not only the big centres; he understand the small ones.
It is emblematic of the National Party to reach out to those on the corners, to make sure that those people are not forgotten, to make sure that the person in Tumbarumba knows that they've got a champion in Canberra, fighting on their behalf, for their issues—a person who's not going to follow the Zeitgeist, the instructions and the decrees of the two major parties. We've seen the National Party, as recently as yesterday, standing up on behalf of regional people in the Northern Territory, making sure that they get properly represented, breaking away from following edicts, making sure that this thing is pursued through. In the National Party we take pride in ourselves, and if you wish to cross the floor you can. You just have a good reason and tell your colleagues first—and we do.
This is why I believe Trevor Hicks, as a person who's run his own business, as a person who's been a deputy mayor, as a person who understands the dairy industry, as a person who was at the forefront of understanding, empathising and working with those dealing with the bushfires and the drought, is most definitely the best candidate to represent the people of Eden-Monaro and to come to Canberra and make sure that he delivers an outcome for them that takes them forward.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:20